# Recycling data for Marine Spatial Planning: A review of maritime plans in Europe

Juliette Davret, Brice Trouillet

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Juliette Davret, Brice Trouillet. Recycling data for Marine Spatial Planning: A review of maritime plans in Europe. 2024. hal-04563075

HAL Id: hal-04563075

https://hal.science/hal-04563075

Preprint submitted on 29 Apr 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Recycling data for Marine Spatial Planning: A review of maritime plans in Europe

Juliette Davret, Brice Trouillet

► To cite this version:

Juliette Davret, Brice Trouillet. Recycling data for Marine Spatial Planning: A review of maritime plans in Europe. Journal of Interdisciplinary Methodologies and Issues in Science, 2025, Geographic Information Science & environmental measures, Vol. 12 - Sciences de l'information géographique & mesures environnementales, 10.46298/jimis.13496. hal-04563075v4

HAL Id: hal-04563075

https://hal.science/hal-04563075v4

Submitted on 4 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
## Introduction

The area of environmental data is attracting growing attention due to the important role it plays in the management of marine areas. Indeed, recent observations made by environmental activists engaged in ocean protection and working within the European Commission highlight a major problem: the withholding of data by some government, thus compromising informed decision-making for the conservation of marine ecosystems. The lack of data provided to the European Commission, despite its crucial need for scientific advice to shape evidence-based policies, reveals a major gap in data availability and accessibility. Policies such as Directive 2008/56/EC<fnref n="1" /> establishing the strategic framework for the sea and Directive 2014/89/EU<fnref n="2" /> for Marine Spatial Planning (MSP), show the importance that governments place on the protection and sustainability of the marine ecosystem (Guinan et al., 2021), which can only be guaranteed by access to high-quality data to guide environmental policies in this evidence-based process. To support this ambition, European Union (UE) member states are working on a set of criteria and standards for a more consistent ecological status. To illustrate, this is achieved through a number of marine data collection and sharing initiatives, such as the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) or the European Ocean Observing System (EuroGOOS), which aim to promote access to and sharing of marine data and information, with a view to addressing societal challenges related to marine space. All these initiatives are part of Directive 2007/2/EC (INSPIRE), which established a common infrastructure for spatial information.

But, on the one hand, EMODnet, for example, still requires to improve the coverage, quality, and resolution of the data, as well as the consistency, harmonisation and interoperability of the various accessible thematic areas (Martín Míguez et al., 2019). As it stands, EMODnet results in data degradation in enabling European standardisation at similar scales, leading to the loss of significant detail (Guinan et al., 2021). On the other hand, a strictly spatial approach to data through visualization tools cannot take into account non-spatialized data, despite the fact that this could minimize the risk of incomplete information (Holzhüter et al., 2019), particularly when implementing marine planning policies. Directive 2014/89/EU places data at the core of the MSP process, since EU member states must organize MSP on 'reliable', 'evidence-based' data, in short, 'the best available data'. In fact, MSP is, in theory, an evidence-based process (MSP Data Study, 2016). This means that the success of MSP is closely linked to the quality and availability of data (Stamoulis & Delevaux, 2015). While some organizations are working on cross-border harmonisation (e.g. HELCOM-VASAB), particularly in areas where maritime activities are densest, such as the Baltic Sea in Europe, the main focus is on harmonizing spatial representations (Zaucha, 2014), particularly through the production of homogeneous data. However, this does not yet apply to all areas covered by Directive 2014/89/EU, which severely hampers the implementation of transborder maritime plans, as each state defines its own indicators of good ecological status (European MSP Platform, 2019) and its own interpretation of "the application of an ecosystem-based approach will contribute to promote sustainable development and growth of maritime and coastal economies and sustainable use of marine and coastal resources". (Directive 2014/89/EU). Therefore, it seems necessary to study the data mobilized in the MSP context to understand what are the potential challenges and limits to the application of the European directive. To do so, we will examine the existing marine plans in Europe and especially the data lifecycle to produce an evidence-based plan.

This study focuses on the data used for MSP, examined through its lifecycle (collection/selection, processing, mapping...). In this article, the term lifecycle refers to the genealogy of the data, from the production to the representation on a map. The lifecycle consists of all the phases through which data pass from their creation through to their deletion. Given the datafication of the world, data abundance and, above all quality, must be

<footnote n="1">¹ Directive establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), 2008/56/EC (2008). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008L0056</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (MSP directive), n° 2014/89/EU (2014). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0089</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Recycling data for Marine Spatial Planning: A review of maritime plans in Europe

Juliette DAVRET*<fnref n="1" />, Brice TROUILLET<fnref n="1" />

¹ Nantes Université, CNRS, LETG, UMR 6554, F-44000, Nantes, France

*Corresponding author: juliette.davret@mu.ie

DOI: 10.46298/jimis.13496

Submitted: April 30th 2024 - Accepted: January 16th 2025

Volume: 12 – Année : 2024

Title of the issue: **Geographic Information Science & environmental measures**

Editors: Thierry Badard (Université Laval, Québec), Jacynthe Pouliot (Université Laval, Québec), Matthieu Noucher (CNRS, Bordeaux), Marlène Villanova (Université Alpes Grenoble).

## Abstract

The ecosystem-based approach to marine spatial planning (MSP) is attracting increasing attention due to the requirements of Directive 2014/89/EU. To date, research on the ecosystem-based approach has focused mainly on the methods used to set up studies to assess the impact of human marine activities on ecosystems. This article presents a review of European marine plans, focusing in particular on the data and maps used to translate MSP. This study should contribute to our understanding of the notion of entanglement in planning. We draw on critical data studies, and in particular on the theory of intra-action and the concept of information in-formation, to understand the biases of data and maps. We used a method based on a content analysis to study maritime plans in Europe with regard to four main indicators enabling us to evaluate data and map uses in MSPs in relation to the ecosystem-based approach. Overall, our results suggest that the ecosystem approach is poorly transcribed on maps due to a lack of suitable data sets, geotechnological constraints, or political decisions. In particular, we observe a recycling of data for planning purposes. Our research has highlighted the importance of studying the entire data lifecycle, from production to display, in order to have a holistic vision of MSP.

## Keywords

Data; Marine Spatial Planning; Maps; Ecosystem-based approach

# 1 INTRODUCTION

The management of marine areas is increasingly reliant on environmental data, but environmental activists have recently observed that data is being withheld by some governments<fnref n="1" />, which hampers evidence-based decision-making for the conservation of marine ecosystems. Despite European

<footnote n="1">1 https://bloomassociation.org/un-ete-meurtrier</footnote>
52 interrogated at each stage of an MSP process (Holzhüter et al., 2019). It is also worth 53 examining the multiscale approach of European spatial planning in order to assess the 54 coordination of marine plans for a space that cannot be delimited in a fixed way, as is then 55 the case on maps. This study was carried out to understand what knowledge is produced by 56 these data, how, by whom, and why? As critical data studies have shown, answering these 57 questions will help to understand the power relationship that shapes planning. 58

59 The results of this study will greatly contribute to extend the existing literature on this subject 60 with a critical approach in order to document the following questions: Do the data created 61 and used in marine spatial plans capture the entanglements between human activities and 62 the marine environment? Our hypothesis is that if the data used do not enable us to assess 63 impacts and multidimensional relationships in marine environments, then they do not enable 64 us to satisfy the environmental protection goals required by the European directive. Unless, 65 as Batty (2022) argues, the data are used only downstream in the planning process. In that 66 case, data serve simply to justify political decisions. By validating or invalidating this 67 hypothesis, we will not only document the power-knowledge relationships that crystallize 68 through data, but also discuss their quality external and internal, as claimed by Devillers and 69 Jeansoulin (2005). To do so, we need to balance the notion of abundance when discussing 70 data and interrogating their spatial representation, especially in a marine case study, 71 because spatial boundaries are not static. 72

72 This article is organized as follows: Section 1 examines the literature gap to fill in. Section 2 73 presents the methodology and justifies the focus on European planning documents to carry 74 out a comparative study based on the common requirements set out in Directive 75 2014/89/EU. Of all the data available for MSPs, we will also explain why we have chosen to 76 focus on environmental data in this paper. In Section 3 we present the results. This is 77 followed by Section 4, which enables us to discuss the data lifecycle to understand planning 78 and conclude in Section 5. 79

80 **Section 1. The use of data in Marine Spatial Planning: How to frame marine challenges**
81 **with data?**

82
83 Data harmonization has become a major topic in recent studies; it is repeatedly discussed in 84 the scientific literature as an urgent need in order to meet the goals posed by MSP (Elher, 85 2008; Hattam et al., 2015; Holzhüter et al., 2019; MSP Data Study, 2016; Stamoulis & 86 Develaux, 2015). Strain et al. (2006) suggested that spatial information is recognized as a 87 decisive element in decision-making since it provides the geographical context for plans. 88
89 Results reported by Holzhüter et al. (2019) or Schaefer & Barale (2011) suggest that the 90 temporal dimension is also important for the management of human activities at sea, since 91 both ecosystems and human activities are subject to seasonal shifts, making it necessary to 92 adjust their compatibility. Marine space must also be taken into account in a three- 93 dimensional way, while including the temporal dimension, which makes the management of 94 marine space more complex and reinforces the decisive role of geographical information 95 relating to it. In their 2014 paper, Shucksmith and Kelly reported the limited implementation 96 of spatial and temporal aspects of the dataset used for MSP. 97

97 However, despite this acknowledgement, the actual integration of spatial and temporal 98 aspects into datasets remains limited. Various studies have been carried out to examine the 99 data used in MSP, revealing significant gaps and disparities between states in the 100 processing of data for planning purposes (e.g. Shepperson et al., 2018 ; Trouillet, 2019, 101 2020). These studies reveal the growing attention given to data in planning, but also 102 highlight the need to deepen our understanding of the power-knowledge dynamics involved 103 in the production and use of data. 104

104 Few researchers have addressed the question of data quality used in MSP. The last five 105 years have witnessed and increased the number of multinational projects involved in MSP 106 data studies. UNESCO has recently conducted an inventory of marine environment in the
directives like 2008/56/EC2, establishing a strategic framework for the sea, and 2014/89/EU3, for marine spatial planning (MSP), which demonstrate the importance that governments place on the protection and sustainability of the marine ecosystem (Guinan et al., 2021), there remain gaps in the availability and accessibility of data. Initiatives such as the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) and European Ocean Observing System (EuroGOOS) aim to improve data access and sharing, but issues are still present in terms of data coverage, quality and harmonisation (Martín Miguez et al., 2019).

Unfortunately, tools like EMODnet, which focus on spatial data, often overlook non-spatial data, meaning the information required for marine planning is often incomplete (Holzhüter et al., 2019). The MSP process requires ‘reliable’, ‘evidence based’ data, i.e. the ‘best available data’ (Directive 2014/89/EU), since it is, in theory, an evidence-based process (MSP Data Study, 2016). However, the inconsistency of ecological indicators between EU member states and the absence of cross-border harmonisation hinder effective implementation of MSP (Stamoulis & Delevaux, 2015). It is essential that these problems are addressed by analysing the data used in existing European marine plans, to allow evidence-based policies to be implemented for sustainable marine management.

This study focuses on the data used in MSP, as examined through planning documents. The data lifecycle is traced by studying the maps, sources and proposed analyses in the plans. For this article, the term ‘lifecycle’ refers to the genealogy of data, from production to representation on maps. Since datafication is now a widespread phenomenon, the quality and amount of data at each phase of the MSP process must be questioned (Holzhüter et al., 2019), to understand the knowledge produced by MSP data (who produces it, how it is produced and for what purpose) while analysing the power dynamics that influence planning. The hypothesis is that if the complex interaction between human activities and the marine environment cannot be captured by studying the data, it may not meet the environmental protection goals set by the European directive. However, if data is only used later in the planning process, it may merely serve to justify political decisions (Batty, 2022).

The study contributes to the critical literature on MSP by addressing the quality and relevance of the data used. It questions whether the data effectively represents the multidimensional relationships in marine environments and discusses unfixed spatial boundaries. This article is divided into five sections. Section 2 addresses gaps in the literature. Section 3 describes the methodology and offers a justification of the focus on European planning documents to carry out a comparative study based on the common requirements set out in Directive 2014/89/EU. An explanation is also given for the focus on environmental data in this paper rather than any other data available for MSPs. Section 4 details the results. Section 5 discusses the entanglement of digital and data governance in marine planning, and section 6 is the conclusion.

## 2 USE OF DATA IN MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING: QUANTIFYING MARINE ISSUES WITH DATA

### 2.1 Data integration and quality issues in MSP

Data harmonisation has been the focus of many recent studies and is often discussed in scientific publications as being an urgent necessity to fulfil MSP objectives (Ehler, 2008; Hattam et al., 2015; Holzhüter et al., 2019; MSP Data Study, 2016; Stamoulis & Delevaux, 2015). Strain et al. (2006) suggested that spatial information plays a significant role in decision-making since it provides the geographical context for plans. Results reported by Holzhüter et al. (2019) and Schaefer & Barale

<footnote n="2">2 Directive establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), 2008/56/EC (2008). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A2008L0056</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (MSP Directive), no 2014/89/EU (2014). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0089</footnote>
107 Mediterranean, highlighting gaps in data according to activities or spatial representations
108 (UNESCO-IOC, 2021) on the basis of a survey completed by stakeholders in the
109 Mediterranean. The eMSP-NBSR project also supported the implementation of a survey on
110 the use of data and information to better understand consistency, limitations, and
111 improvements regarding the data used in MSP for the Baltic Sea and Northern European
112 countries (Lequesne and Souf, 2023). This survey reveals once again the attention paid to
113 data in planning. Both the UNESCO survey and the eMSP-NBSR project demonstrate that
114 there are major disparities between countries in the way data are handled for planning
115 purposes.
116 These studies on data used in planning need to be taken further since, although they are
117 valuable for taking a snapshot of how data is used, they do not provide an understanding of
118 the power-knowledge relationships at work in the data factory. Therefore, when Batty (2022)
119 reveals that (urban) planning is based on data only downstream and not upstream of the
120 process, and encourages a change in this practice to meet the challenges of planning, this
121 area needs to be deeply investigated in marine planning as well. Furthermore, critical data
122 studies have shown that data processing is never neutral and emanates from a multitude of
123 choices (Dalton & Thatcher, 2014; Kitchin, 2021). MSP has been invested by critical data
124 studies, and some of them focus on one activity, and thus reveal the production of
125 knowledge and the missing layer (St. Martin & Hall-Arber, 2008). In particular, the lack of
126 information relating to some specific activity is well documented in the literature (e.g., fishing
127 activity has been studied by Leroy, 2018 and Trouillet, 2019). Generally, studies of data
128 used in MSP often focus on environmental data (McGowan et al., 2013; Ryan et al., 2018;
129 Weatherdon et al., 2015) and question the quality and use. Environmental data are
130 particularly interesting in view of the MSP goals, as it must enable 'ecosystem and
131 biodiversity conservation' (paragraph 1, Directive 2014/89/EU) and ensure that "the
132 collective pressure of all activities is kept within levels compatible with the achievement of
133 good environmental status and that the capacity of marine ecosystems to respond to human-
134 induced changes is not compromised, while contributing to the sustainable use of marine
135 goods and services by present and future generations" (paragraph 14, Directive
136 2014/89/EU). Data quality issues cannot be addressed without documenting the internal and
137 external quality of data (Devilliers & Jeansoulin, 2006), which has so far eluded analyses of
138 environmental data in planning. In addition to data quality, other studies have looked at the
139 production of data more suited to the challenges faced by MSP and at data harmonization
140 (Dosell et al., 2021; Guinan et al., 2021; Holzhüter et al., 2019), but again, only a few
141 examples are given, and these do not cover the full range of issues potentially linked to data
142 production for planning purposes.
143 Finally, academic research has focused on the 'ecosystem-based' approach promoted by
144 Directive 2014/89/EC (e.g. Domínguez-Tejo et al., 2016; Douvere, 2008; Douvere & Ehler,
145 2009; Gilliland & Laffoley, 2008), which in theory meets the need for a balanced approach
146 between offshore activities development and environmental conservation. In practice,
147 Domínguez-Tejo et al. (2016) points out, using a comparative study, the relevant
148 characteristics of applying an ecosystem-based approach are rarely present, in particular the
149 assessment of human activities pressures, but also social values or non-market activities.
150 Considering the above-mentioned issues, it is necessary to pursue further reflections
151 through the study of the environmental data production in MSP, in particular through the
152 notion of an ecosystem. To better understand the meaning of an ecosystem, in this paper,
153 we will refer to the intra-action theory to offer an innovative conceptual framework for
154 understanding the construction of environmental data and the complex relationships
155 between humans, non-human actors and their environment. According to Barad (2007) and
156 applied to data, intra-action can be considered as recognizing the interconnection between
157 various entities involved in the production and use of data, and this approach highlights the
158 co-construction of environmental reality. We will explore this theory through the concept of
159 information in-formation (Kaufmann and Leese, 2021), which allows us to understand the
160 creation of new information through the entanglement of environmental and human activities
161 data. For example, the use of intra-action theory to marine planning makes it possible to
(2011) suggest that the temporal dimension is also important for managing human activities at sea, since both the ecosystem and human activities are subject to seasonal shifts and adjustments are therefore required to ensure compatibility. The three-dimensional aspect of marine space must also be taken into account, which further complicates the management of marine space and reinforces the importance of geographical information. It is also essential to consider the temporal dimension of activities at sea. In a 2014 paper, Shucksmith and Kelly reported on the limited implementation of spatial and temporal aspects of the dataset used for MSP. In spite of these findings, the inclusion of spatial and temporal aspects in datasets remains limited in practice. Various studies have examined the data used in MSP and revealed significant gaps and disparities in the processing of data for planning purposes between countries (e.g. Shepperson et al., 2018; Trouillet, 2019, 2020). These studies reveal the growing importance of data in planning and reinforce the need to improve our understanding of how data is produced and used.

The number of multinational projects involving MSP data studies has increased over the last five years, but few researchers have addressed the issue of the quality of the data used. UNESCO recently compiled a report of the marine environment in the Mediterranean based on a survey of the stakeholders involved, which highlights gaps in the data relating to various activities and spatial representations (UNESCO-IOC, 2021). The eMSP-NBSR project has also conducted a survey on the use of data and information to better understand the consistency and limitations of the data used in MSP for the Baltic Sea and Northern European countries, and discuss improvements to it (Lequesne and Souf, 2023). This survey reinforces the importance of data in planning. Both the UNESCO survey and the eMSP-NBSR project demonstrate that there are major disparities between countries in the way data is handled for planning purposes.

These studies on the data used for planning purposes are valuable as a snapshot of how data is used, but do not provide an understanding of the power-knowledge relationships at work in the data production, and should therefore be extended. For instance, Batty (2022) reveals that (urban) planning is based only on downstream data processes and not upstream ones, and encourages a change in this practice to fulfil planning requirements, which would suggest the need for a similar, more thorough investigation of this aspect as it relates to marine planning. Critical data studies have also shown that data processing is never neutral but influenced by multiple choices from data collection to dissemination (Dalton & Thatcher, 2014; Kitchin, 2021). In terms of MSP, some of the critical data studies on which it is based focus on a single activity, indicating the influence of knowledge production and a 'missing layer' (i.e. a lack of data for certain marine activities which are therefore not taken into account when planning) (St. Martin & Hall-Arber, 2008). The absence of information relating to various specific activities is well documented in the literature (e.g. fishing, as studied by Leroy, 2018 and Trouillet, 2019). Some studies of data used in MSP have focused on environmental data (McGowan et al., 2013; Ryan et al., 2018; Weatherdon et al., 2015), questioning its quality and usage. Environmental data is of particular interest in terms of MSP goals, as it must enable 'ecosystem and biodiversity conservation' (paragraph 1, Directive 2014/89/EU) and ensure that "the collective pressure of all activities is kept within levels compatible with the achievement of good environmental status, and that the capacity of marine ecosystems to respond to human-induced changes is not compromised, while contributing to the sustainable use of marine goods and services by present and future generations" (paragraph 14, Directive 2014/89/EU). Data quality issues should be addressed by documenting the internal and external quality of data (Devilliers & Jeansoulin, 2006), which has so far eluded analyses of environmental data in planning. The 'internal' quality of data refers to its properties and characteristics, measured by the difference between the data that should be produced and the data that is actually produced. The 'external' quality is the alignment of data with usage needs, measured by the difference between the necessary or ideal data, and the data that is actually produced. In addition to data quality, other studies have looked at the production of data more suited to the challenges faced by MSP and at data harmonisation (Dosell et al., 2021; Guinan et al., 2021; Holzhüter et al., 2019), but again, only
move beyond traditional conceptions of human-environment interaction and recognize the intertwined nature of relationships between human being, nature, and technology (Lehman, 2016). This framework offers a new understanding of governance processes and underlines the importance of taking into account the complex interactions between the different actors and factors involved in the production and use of environmental data. Ultimately, applying intra-action theory allows us to recognise the complexity of interactions of human/non-human/environment interactions in MSP. This leads to a more holistic and integrated approach to the management of marine resources, taking into account various social, economic, and environmental dimensions involved in marine space. By applying it to the case of European MSP, this ensures a basis of common environmental requirements for conducting a comparative study.

173

## Section 2: Materials and Methods

175

The method used in this research is a content analysis of the maritime plans in Europe. More specifically we used a comparative perspective to analyze all the plans that fall within the scope of Directive 2014/89/EU for the first MSP cycle. This methodological proposal must be mobilized in the light of the theoretical framework developed and particularly through the intra-action approach to understand the production of data in an ecosystem approach promoted by the European directive.

182

To establish whether the data used are aligned with the ecosystem approach mentioned in Directive 2014/89/EU, Barad (2007) theory is used. Indeed, based on Barad (2007) and Kaufmann and Leese (2021) research, we understand the importance of carefully analyze the specifics of the relationships between data and its lifecycle. For this reason, we use the concept of 'information in-information' (Kaufmann and Leese, 2021), to describe the entanglement of data in planning. By exploring what it means to form information in a policy context for managing marine space, particularly from an ecosystem-based policy perspective, it should be possible to show how interactions between data and humans generate knowledge and action.

Directive 2014/89/EU promotes a cross-sectoral integrated and cross-border approach. The application of an ecosystem-based approach (paragraph 14) is intended to help promote the sustainable development and growth of marine and coastal economies, as well as the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources. The directive also mentions (paragraph 13) the pressures on ecosystems and resources resulting from human activities, climate change, and natural risks. Encourages consideration of land-sea interactions, as well as human and non-human interactions (paragraph 16). MSP also needs to take into account the temporal aspect of activities and, in particular, possible long-term variations (paragraph 19). To this end, states implementing MSP must base their plans on "reliable data [...] [and] use of the best available data and information by encouraging relevant stakeholders to share information and [use] existing instruments and tools for data collection" (paragraph 24). Our approach is mainly based on three key aspects: (1) knowledge of ecosystems and the variations they may undergo; (2) the superposition of data to assess interactions; (3) the use of impact indicators derived from these data. These three points of data evaluation will make it possible to document interactions between natural environments, as well as between human and non-human aspects of marine space. Analysis of the diversity of available data should enable us to assess the potential differences that exist in data production. By documenting ecosystems and the parameters that influence them, it is possible to see the 'information in-formation' if certain information, taken independently, has a different meaning when put together. The impact indicator approach helps to document data entanglement since it results from the combination of several data to assess an overall state. Given Directive 2014/89/EU, the study of data production through environmental data is particularly interesting, since this aspect of offshore planning is relatively circumscribed by the text of the directive. This method has been already used in previous comparative studies, at the
limited examples are given, and these do not cover the whole range of issues potentially linked to
data production for planning purposes.

## 2.2 Intra-action as the foundation for ecosystem interconnection

Academic research has focused on the ‘ecosystem-based’ approach promoted by the MSP directive (e.g. Domínguez-Tejo et al., 2016; Douvere, 2008; Douvere & Ehler, 2009; Gilliland & Laffoley, 2008), which in theory fulfils the need for a balanced approach between environmental conservation and the development of offshore activities. In practice, Domínguez-Tejo et al. (2016) point out in a comparative study that the relevant aspects are rarely considered in an ecosystem-based approach, in particular the assessment of human activity pressures, but also social values and non-market activities. Schwartz-Belkin and Portman (2023) provide a literature review specific to the ecosystem-based management approach and the challenges posed by limitations of the data available. The authors identify geospatial technologies that can help navigate the challenges of MSP. The research for the present study extends to the environmental data used in MSP, through the concept of an ecosystem. We do this by exploring the theoretical framework of intra-action, as articulated by Barad (2007). This framework provides new insights to understand the term ‘ecosystem’ as the construction of environmental data layers and the dynamic relationships between human and non-human actors. Intra-action, as a concept, moves beyond the traditional view of interaction, where entities are assumed to pre-exist in their relationships. Instead, intra-action posits that entities emerge through specific engagements or ‘intra-actions’ – relations that enact their properties and boundaries.

Barad’s theory, grounded in quantum physics and philosophical inquiry, challenges the notion of independent relata (objects, entities or agents) that come into interaction. Instead, Barad argues that entities take on their properties through specific intra-actions. For example, in quantum experiments, particles like electrons do not pre-exist as entities with definite properties such as position or momentum. These properties emerge through measurement, with some attributes (e.g. position) becoming determinate while others (e.g. momentum) being excluded. This principle, known as complementarity, illustrates that properties are not intrinsic to particles but are enacted through their entanglements within experimental setups (Hollin et al., 2017). As Barad states, “Relata do not preexist relations; rather, relata-within-phenomena emerge through specific intra-actions.” (Barad, 2007, p. 140). Applied to ecosystems, this principle suggests that the elements of an ecosystem (species, habitats, human activities, technologies, etc.) do not exist as static, isolated entities, but emerge through their dynamic relationships. This has profound implications for how we understand and manage marine systems under the MSP framework. Intra-action offers a theoretical lens to deepen our understanding of an ecosystem-based approach by emphasising the co-constitution of human and non-human actors. For instance, marine planning traditionally addresses human-environment interactions, such as the impact of fishing or offshore energy infrastructure on marine ecosystems. In contrast, intra-action highlights how these relationships actively shape the entities involved. A fishing vessel, for example, is not merely an external actor imposing pressure on fish populations. Instead, its practices, technologies, and impacts are co-constituted through its entanglement with the marine environment, regulatory frameworks, and societal needs.

In MSP, the aim of the ecosystem-based approach is to handle the various uses of marine space (fishing, energy, conservation, transport, etc.) in an integrated manner, while considering the underlying ecological interactions (e.g. the trophic relationships between species, ocean current movements and biogeochemical cycles). Intra-action complements this by adding a deeper theoretical dimension, emphasising that these elements and interactions are not pre-given, but are dynamically constituted through their relationships. Kaufmann and Leese (2021) introduce the concept of ‘information in-formation’ to describe how environmental data emerges from the entanglements of human and non-human activities. This aligns with Barad’s agential realism, which insists that scientific practices, such as data collection and interpretation, actively participate in creating the phenomena they describe. Applying intra-action to marine planning enables a shift
European level or beyond (e.g., Trouillet, 2020). On this basis, we define three questions with reference to the ecosystem approach as framed by Directive 2014/89/EU:

- Question 1 (Q1): What types of data are available to map ecosystems?

- Question 2 (Q2): Are data available to map entanglements (or intra-action)?

- Question 3 (Q3): Can the data produced support a multidimensional approach?

By studying this from the information available on European marine plans and documenting how they mobilize data, particularly the cartographic part of the documents, and by looking specifically at the data used and which must enable the directive to be met, the aim is to understand which (f)actors (technical or human) influence maritime spatial planning. The three questions that we seek to answer by analyzing our corpus, are broken down into several indicators (Tab.1):

<table><caption>Table 1. Indicators applied to European MSP initiatives</caption><thead><tr><td>Questions</td><td>Indicators</td><td>Labels (and comments)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Q1</td><td>I1</td><td>Ecosystem representation<br/>Factual assessment of whether data are available to represent ecosystems.</td></tr><tr><td>Q2</td><td>I2</td><td>Data overlay<br/>Creation of new information ('information in-formation')</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>I3</td><td>Indicator resulting from the combination of several data items<br/>Highlighting co-construction relationships (intra-action)</td></tr><tr><td>Q3</td><td>I4</td><td>Potential conflicts documented<br/>Multidimensional approach to offshore activities</td></tr></tbody></table>

These four indicators will be applied to our corpus and should enable us to document the answers to the three main questions as factually as possible, in order to draw general conclusions.

## Corpus

Because we were interested in comparing different marine plans, we considered only plans under Directive 2014/89/EU. Based on the scope of application of Directive 2014/89/EU, we built up a corpus of marine plans back in 2021. The plans were selected on the basis of the census carried out by the European Commission within the framework of the European MSP Platform<fnref n="3" /> before 2022, which is an information and communication website designed to offer support to all EU member states in the implementation of MSP (see details in Appendix 1). Directive 2014/89/EU requires all EU coastal member states to have an intersectoral plan for their marine are by 2021. The principal advantage of this method is that the European directive calls for a certain homogenization of plans, at least with a view to meeting the requirements, which enables us to apply an analysis grid that should be compatible from one plan to another. Conversely, the main limitation is that the plans cannot summarize all the documents produced as part of the planning exercise. It is therefore likely that some elements will be overlooked in this analysis. Based on the European MSP Platform, the inclusion of the United Kingdom within this corpus deserves attention, despite its departure from the EU. Previously, the development plans for its seafronts fell under the purview of Directive 2014/89/EU. In particular, Norway, although not part of the EU and thus not obligated to comply with the aforementioned directive, adheres to approximately 95% of EU directives through other European environmental policies. This raises pertinent concerns regarding its exclusion from the corpus. To maintain coherence, we align with the corpus outlined by the European MSP Platform before 2022, choosing to exclude Norway but include the United Kingdom in our analytical framework from the corpus. For the sake of

<footnote n="3">³ https://maritime-spatial-planning.test.ec.europa.eu/</footnote>
beyond the traditional conceptions of human-environment interaction and recognises how
relationships between humans, nature and technology are intertwined (Lehman, 2016).

Intra-action and the ecosystem-based approach converge in their recognition of the dynamic, interdependent relationships within marine systems. While the ecosystem-based approach emphasises interconnection, intra-action underscores the co-constitution and continuous flux of these relationships. This understanding enhances our ability to navigate with complexities of MSP, providing a robust framework for integrating human and ecological dimensions in a more holistic and adaptive manner. When applied to European MSP, it provides a basis of common environmental requirements for conducting a comparative study.

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The method used for this research is a content analysis of the maritime plans in Europe. A comparative analysis of all the plans falling within the scope of Directive 2014/89/EU for the first MSP cycle was carried out. This method should be considered in the light of the theoretical framework developed - the intra-action approach - to understand how data is produced in the ecosystem-based system promoted by the European directive.

3.1 Indicators

Barad’s theory (2007) was applied to establish whether the data used is in line with the ecosystem-
based approach required by the MSP directive. In accordance with the findings of Barad (2007) and
Kaufmann and Leese (2021), it was considered essential to carefully analyse the specifics of the
relationships between data and its lifecycle, and to employ the concept of ‘information in-
information’ (Kaufmann and Leese, 2021), to describe the entanglement of data in planning.
Information in-formation refers to a continuous process of formation and transformation of
structures, whether biological, social or technological. Unlike a static conception of information
where it is perceived as a fixed set of data, the concept of ‘in-formation’ creates a dynamic that
shapes and restructures systems. By applying the concept of ‘in-formation’ to the MSP context, a
holistic view of the processes that shape interactions between marine environments and human
activities can be created to better understand how these systems are structured and adapt in space
and time. This approach enables us to grasp the complexity of ecological dynamics and their
relationships with social and economic dynamics. By exploring what it means to form information
in the context of developing a policy for managing marine space, from an ecosystem-based
perspective in particular, it should be possible to show how the interactions between data and
humans generate knowledge and action.

The ecosystem-based approach involves integrated management of the ecosystems, including all their ecological components and interactions with human activities, while respecting the ecological limits of the system. One key aspect of the ecosystem-based approach in Europe is the integration of ecosystem services, i.e. the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems (resources such as fisheries, the regulation of ecological processes, support for basic ecological functions, the cultural and aesthetic value of ecosystems, etc.). In the context of MSP, the assessment and mapping of these services enables us to understand and visualise how marine ecosystems support critical socio-economic functions. Directive 2014/89/EU promotes an integrated cross-sectoral, cross-border approach. The use of an ecosystem-based approach (paragraph 14) is intended to help promote the sustainable development and growth of marine and coastal economies and the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources. The MSP directive also mentions (paragraph 13) the pressures on ecosystems and resources resulting from human activities, climate change and natural risks. It encourages consideration of land-sea interactions and human and non-human interactions (paragraph 16). The MSP should also take into account the temporal aspect of activities and, in particular, any possible long-term variations (paragraph 19). To this end, the governments responsible for implementing MSP must base their plans on ‘reliable data [...] [and] use of the best available data and information by encouraging relevant stakeholders to share information and [use]
consistency, we have decided to follow the corpus proposed by the European MSP Platform and not to include Norway but to include the United Kingdom in our analysis.
In order to analyze the most tangible planning materials, we build up our corpus with planning documents, in particular maps, to identify the dataset that are mobilized, and thus understand how they are produced. So, when we look at planning documents, we analyze the maps they contain, with the aim of tracing them back to the data. Consequently, the corpus is made up of 38 planning documents (under development or finalized) in 23 countries. Each country is responsible for developing its own marine plan. Therefore, it is necessary to extract plans that are not in French or English and therefore unintelligible to us, which brings us to 19 plans spread over 11 countries. Our analysis grid will be applied to 19 marine plans.

269

## Section 3 : Results

271

The study presented in this paper offers an in-depth examination of a crucial moment in the operational component of MSP, but does not aim to be exhaustive.

Given the sum of compiled elements, we have opted to provide a synthesis of the results in this section, while reserving detailed listings for the Appendices. The analysis of 19 marine planning documents (Table 2 and Appendix 2) yielded the following outline results – focusing solely on trends and overall proportions, rather than conducting a statistical analysis, which would lack significance due to the limited number of MSPs included:

279

* Indicator I1: Marine ecosystems are documented for the entire planning area of 8 out of 19 MSP initiatives and are partially documented, particularly when they correspond to protection zones, in 11 MSP initiatives in the maps published.

280

281

282

283

To be more explicit, we decided to illustrate our result with some examples. All plans and maps mentioned in the results section are detailed in our Appendices 1 and 2. A comparison of marine ecosystem mapping data for Ireland and the Netherlands reveals significant disparities. Ireland benefits from the support of exhaustive coverage of its exclusive economic zone, as illustrated in the associated geoportal (https://atlas.marine.ie) used to produce maps. In addition, consultation of the online atlas reveals the diversity and richness of available datasets, ranging from biodiversity to climate change and environmental monitoring. However, in the Netherlands, only areas of ecological interest, in particular Natura 2000, are mapped in the environmental part of the MSP. Closer observation reveals that these data are not specifically produced for planning purposes, but are derived from other management projects.

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

Looking closely at data production, it is clear that, both for Ireland and the Netherlands, the data come from various government bodies and are neither necessarily produced for planning purposes, but are often derived from other projects and recycled for MSP.

295

296

297

It is also important to note that access to metadata, which is essential for understanding how data are produced, is often limited or not available in a language that the authors of this paper understood, as is it in Denmark, where, surprisingly, the metadata are only available in Danish. This situation is particularly challenging when it comes to understanding the choices and processes involved in the production and representation of data.

298

299

300

301

302

303

* Indicator I2: In 9 of 19 MSP initiatives, the plans use a combination of data related to ecosystems and human activities to generate new information to guide an ecosystem-based approach. In 10 MSP initiatives, the use of data related to ecosystems and human activities only results in the overlaying of information graphically, but does not generate any new information.

304

305

306

307

308

309

To understand this result, we can, for example, use the case of Bulgaria, where the data made available to document ecosystems are treated as zoning. On the map proposed in the MSP document, there is an overlay of certain zonings, but this does not result in any new

310

311

312
existing instruments and tools for data collection' (paragraph 24). The approach used in this study is based primarily on three key aspects: (1) knowledge of ecosystems and the variations they may undergo; (2) the superposition of data to assess interactions; (3) the use of impact indicators derived from this data. These three data evaluation points enable documentation of the interactions between natural environments and between human and non-human aspects of marine space. Analysing the diversity of available data should enable us to assess the potential differences that exist in data production. However, there are significant challenges involved in representing marine ecosystems in map form. While mapping species and habitats is a relatively well-established practice, mapping ecosystems as a whole is more complex, because it involves not just the biological composition of an area but also the interactions between different biotic and abiotic components and their spatial-temporal dynamics. This process is subjective because ecosystems are not static entities, they are in perpetual reconfiguration, which makes cartographic representation less straightforward.

Documenting ecosystems and the parameters that influence them reveals the 'information information' where certain information, taken independently, would be interpreted differently. The impact indicator approach facilitates the documentation of data entanglement as it is produced by combining different types of data to assess the overall position. The study of data production based on environmental data is of particular interest since this aspect of offshore planning is indicated in the text of the MSP directive. The method has been used previously in comparative studies in Europe and beyond (e.g. Trouillet, 2020). Based on this premise, three questions were determined with reference to the ecosystem-based approach as framed by MSP framework:

* Question 1 (Q1): What types of data are available to map ecosystems?

* Question 2 (Q2): Is there any data available on map entanglements (or intra-action)?

* Question 3 (Q3): Can the data produced support a multidimensional approach?

By studying this in terms of the information available on European marine plans and documenting how the data is used, documentation maps in particular, and by looking specifically at the data used - which must facilitate fulfilment of the directive's objectives - the aim is to understand which human or technical factors influence MSP. The three questions developed by analysing the corpus were broken down into a number of indicators (Table 1):

<table><thead><tr><td>Question</td><td>Code</td><td>Label</td><td>Comment</td><td>Indicator</td><td>Value</td><td>Explanation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Q1</td><td>I1</td><td>Ecosystem representation</td><td>Factual assessment of whether data is available to represent ecosystems</td><td>Are ecosystem areas documented?</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Yes</td><td>2</td><td>The entire marine zone is documented</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Partially</td><td>1</td><td>Only certain areas are mentioned. Mostly, the plan consists of zoning, and some parts of the maritime area have no assigned zoning.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No</td><td>0</td><td>No mention of ecosystems</td></tr></tbody></table>
information. The map is mainly descriptive and the lack of information resulting from the overlapping of zones illustrates the difficulty of taking into account all the dimensions of marine areas. Also, in this case, one possible explanation for this could be the lack of information on the overlaying zones due to missing datasets, but it can also be the result of representation choices. As we cannot access the metadata as we are performing this analysis, because the document has not yet been finalized, no significant correlation can be noted.

* Indicator I3: In 8 of 19 MSP initiatives, the choice of an ecosystem-based approach led to the creation of map-based impact indicators between data on natural ecosystems and human activities. In 11 MSP initiatives, the document did not establish impact indicators cartographically.

To illustrate this indicator, we can use the example of the French Mediterranean coast, where local authorities chose to employ an independent consulting firm to set up a system for assessing the impact of activities affecting the marine environment. The approach used is detailed in the appendix of the planning document, but concerning the data creation, it derives from the use of a scale for assessing impacts in relation to the actions set out in the plan. This impact assessment method shows its limitations when data are not complete or available. For example, according to the MSP document notes, in the case of marine mammals in the Mediterranean Sea, the distribution is not well known by the national institute for biodiversity (named *Office Français de la Biodiversité*), which provided data for MSP. The lack of available datasets means that it is not possible to assess the impact quantitatively. In this case, the lack of information means that no indicators can be mapped.

* Indicator I4: Finally, the 19 MSP initiatives provide partial multidimensional mapping, either because not all human activities are included, or marine biological areas are missing, or one of the multidimensional variables of maritime space is absent (e.g. depth or time variable).

To illustrate this indicator, we use the case of Wales, where data is used for MSP provided by the state and collected on an one-off basis. Besides, most of the data comes from the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Once again, for this last indicator, it is difficult to know whether all the multidimensional aspects of marine space are not accessible due to the lack of specific data creation, processing, representation choices, or technological limitations of geoportals associated with marine plans (Davret et al., 2024).

<table><caption>Table 2 summarizes the results following analysis of 19 MSP initiatives (see details in Appendix 2).</caption><thead><tr><th>Coding</th><th>Value</th><th>Indicators</th><th>Comment</th><th>Count</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">I1</td><td></td><td>Are ecosystems areas documented ?</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Yes</td><td>The entire marine zone is documented</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Partially</td><td>Only certain areas are mentioned</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>0</td><td>No</td><td>No mention of ecosystems</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">I2</td><td></td><td>Is there data overlay ?</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Yes, resulting in new information</td><td>Information is generated and displayed from data overlay</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Yes, but it does not result in a new information</td><td>Information from the overlay data is not mentioned</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>0</td><td>No</td><td>No overlaying of information</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Q2</td><td>I2</td><td>Data overlay</td><td>Creation of new information ('information information')</td><td>Is there any data overlay?</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Yes, resulting in a new layer of information</td><td>2</td><td>Information is generated and displayed from data overlay. On the maps, a reference to the overlapping of two layers of data clearly appears as the result of a new layer of information on the maritime space.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Yes, but it does not result in a new layer of information</td><td>1</td><td>Information from the overlay data is not mentioned. On the maps, the overlapping of various data can be seen but this does not result in a new interpretation or analysis of the maritime space. E.g. overlapping zoning on a map.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No</td><td>0</td><td>No overlaying information. The maps do not overlay information; each layer is analysed independently of the others.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>I3</td><td>Indicator resulting from the combination of several data items</td><td>Highlighting the co-construction relationships (intra-action)</td><td>Are there any indicators of impact on the marine area?</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Yes</td><td>2</td><td>An impact assessment is carried out for all activities presented in the document. This does not guarantee that it is complete, but it does include all the activities presented in the document.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Partially</td><td>1</td><td>Impact indicator not established for all activities. Only some of the activities are taken into account in the impact assessment.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No</td><td>0</td><td>There is no indication of impact assessment on the marine area</td></tr><tr><td>Q3</td><td>I4</td><td>Potential conflicts documented</td><td>Multidimensional approach to offshore activities</td><td>Is a multidimensional approach to marine space documented?</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">I3</td><td colspan="3">Are there indicators of impact on the marine area?</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Yes</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Partially</td><td>Impact indicator not established for all activities</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>0</td><td>No</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">I4</td><td colspan="3">Is a multidimensional approach to marine space documented?</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Yes</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Partially</td><td>The multidimensional approach concerns only part of the marine area or part of marine activities</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>0</td><td>No</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

As highlighted in Table 2, our analysis of 19 MSP documents around Europe reveals that an ecosystem-based approach to marine spaces is often incomplete, particularly when it comes to mapping. From the data shown in Table 2, it is apparent that given the multidimensional nature of marine space, a wide range of data is required (such as spatial sea bottom and surface data, temporal data, etc.). However, these requirements are likely to encounter limitations in terms of techniques, knowledge, tools, or mediums used to transcribe them.

Table 2, which answers our three main questions, demonstrates the following:

* (Q1) Plans with detailed ecosystem mapping tend to use data that highlight the spatial variability of ecosystems, while those with partial mapping often use fragmented data, including zoning data.

* (Q2) Plans that incorporate data overlay to generate new information generally provide mapped impact indicators, unlike maps that overlay data without creating new information.

* (Q3) Data manipulated and used in plans examined do not allow for a complete multidimensional approach, and the limitations inherent in this problem, such as technological constraints, data production, processing, and representation choice, often remain unidentified.

In general, these results indicate gaps in ecosystem-based approaches, particularly in terms of mapping. Although some plans comprehensively document marine ecosystems, others present partial documentation, highlighting disparities between MSPs. While some initiatives effectively integrate data from ecosystems and human activities to generate new information and impact indicators, others simply overlay data without creating meaningful new insights.

Data limitations and technological constraints often impede a comprehensive multidimensional approach in MSPs, highlighting the need to improve data accessibility, comprehensiveness, and integration for more effective marine planning.

This result highlights the differences in the availability and nature of environmental data between European countries, as well as the challenges associated with understanding data production in the context of maritime planning.

## Section 4: Discussion

Our paper examines a variety of facets pertinent to MSP, focusing on the analysis of data used in the planning process. Our study offers valuable information to reflect on the quality and completeness in MSP. Then we delve into the intra-action theory and we demonstrate the interest of doing research on the data lifecycle align with critical data studies to better understand governance of marine space.
<table><caption>TABLE 1 – Indicators applied to European MSP initiatives</caption><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Yes</td><td>2</td><td>The multidimensional approach concerns the entire marine area</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Partially</td><td>1</td><td>The multidimensional approach concerns only part of the marine area or some of the marine activities</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No</td><td>0</td><td>There is no multidimensional approach documented in the document</td></tr></table>

The four indicators were applied to the corpus by analysing the maps of the marine plans. This approach aimed to document the answers to the three main questions as factually as possible and to draw general conclusions. While this method evaluated the data used for MSP, it does not assess the effectiveness of the various approaches. For instance, it does not question whether the entire area is documented, albeit with average-quality data, nor whether only a portion is documented but with high-quality data. The objective is broader: to understand how ecosystems are characterised within the MSP process.

## 3.2 Corpus

Since the intention was to compare different marine plans, only plans drawn up in response to the MSP directive were considered. A corpus of marine plans based on the scope of this framework was created in 2021 for this study. Plans were selected on the basis of the census carried out by the European Commission within the framework of the European MSP Platform<fnref n="4" />, an information and communication website designed to offer support to all EU member states in their implementation of MSP, which existed prior to 2022 (details in Annex 1). The MSP directive required all EU coastal member states to draw up an intersectoral plan for their marine areas by 2021. The main advantage of this method is that the MSP directive calls for a certain homogenisation of plans with a view to meeting the requirements at least, which for the purposes of this study enabled the application of an analysis grid that should be compatible with the various plans. Conversely, the main limitation is that the plans cannot summarise all the documents produced as part of the planning exercise. Some elements may therefore have been overlooked in the present analysis.

The inclusion of the United Kingdom on the European MSP Platform and in this corpus is worth mentioning here, despite its withdrawal from the EU. The development plans for the UK's seabards formerly fell under the purview of the MSP directive. Norway, on the other hand, is not a member of the EU and is not obligated to comply with the aforementioned directive. Nevertheless it complies with approximately 95% of EU directives through other European environmental policies, which raises pertinent questions as to why it is excluded from the corpus. To maintain coherence, the corpus is aligned with the European MSP Platform in its pre-2022 form, choosing to exclude Norway but include the United Kingdom in the analytical framework.

The corpus was made up of the most tangible elements of planning documentation, maps in particular, to identify the data used. In observing the planning documents, the maps contained in them were analysed with the aim of tracing them back to the data. Consequently, the corpus is made up of 38 planning documents from 23 countries (finalised or under development). Each country is responsible for developing its own marine plan; translating the marine plans drafted in different European languages was a laborious task, especially those containing graphic materials such as maps, where contextual understanding is crucial. Although it was theoretically possible to attempt

<footnote n="4">4 https://maritime-spatial-planning.test.cc.europa.eu/</footnote>
## 4.1 Examining data quality through map-making

Interestingly, the results reveal that beyond the factual responses to the indicators, analysis of the data approach to marine planning reveals that the majority of data is produced by the State for previous management project, but rarely specifically for planning purposes, as can be observed from the sources and creation year of the data used in the plans analyzed. It is clear that data production analysis is closely related to information processing, representation, and dissemination choices. In the absence of systematic and intelligible access to all metadata, it is difficult to distinguish each stage of the data lifecycle. These findings raise questions about the quality and completeness of the data used to achieve the ambitious objectives of the ecosystem-based approach.

The results reinforce the need to reflect on the analysis and evaluation of data, from any pre-processing carried out to the representation choice for a specific purpose like planning.

The results of the plan review reveal significant gaps in ecosystem mapping: ecosystem mapping is often partial (in 11 cases of 19), the combination of information does not lead to new information (in 10 cases of 19), or the multidimensional approach is flawed (in all cases) based on our indicators. This weakness is often the result of technical constraints, data availability, or conscious or unconscious political choices. These findings highlight the limits of the 'evidence' available to guide planning decisions in the so-called evidence-based planning.

Critical studies are used to discuss the relationships between decision-making and data.

Thus, as Gregg (2015) points out when speaking of the 'spectacle of data', data visualisation can be a 'fantasy of command and control through seeing' (p. 1) by delivering an ordered and prescriptive vision of space. In fact, MSP maps can be used as a tool of governance and power. Maps are not neutral representations of reality, but are shaped by political choices and specific interests. Consequently, maps can hide or marginalize certain claims or used for marine space, while favoring others (Bridge et al., 2013). McCarthy & Thatcher (2019) point out in this respect that it is mostly collective claims and informal use that are missing from maps due to lack of data. Finally, two ways of assessing the effect that maps and, by extension, the data used in maps, can have on the public stand out: (1) following Li (2014), Scott (1998) or Wood & Fels (1992) maps are a tool or power in themselves, or (2) maps do nothing in themselves but depend on how people use them (Fogelman & Bassett, 2017; Kitchin & Dodge, 2007, 2014). In line with McCarthy & Thatcher (2019) and Kitchin & Dodge (2007), we argue that maps are dependent on the social network in which they act and evolve, but also strongly constrained by the data and geotechnologies used.

Although the expected finding was to be able to trace the data lifecycle in planning, this study showed the difficulty of accessing the metadata. This was particularly the case because the planning process was still underway when we carried out this study and not all the planning geoportals were available, for example.

Altogether, what particularly stands out is that the ecosystem-based approach advocated and expected by MSP is based on data collected on a one-off basis, for example, data collected on an irregular basis and not containing all the parameters needed to represent the marine space (i.e., temporal or seasonal dimension is often absent), or data collected at high frequency and automatically (i.e., fishing activity is often represented with automatically collected data), but which have not been produced with planning in mind. High-frequency and automated data are often monitoring data, not management data (Said & Trouillet, 2020). This means that planning decisions are made without relying on the creation of specific data to meet their needs but are then justified by preexisting data. Our findings provide support for Batty (2018, 2022) theory that raised the same issue for urban planning, deploing the fact that planning is based on downstream rather than upstream data.

The mismatch between MSP needs and the data used is highlighted in our results (Q1), which show that ecosystems are partially documented in 11 of 19 cases. Evidence-based planning requires a meticulous approach to produce adequate data to address spatial management challenges, which is not the case, according to our results. This implies
translation, the results were often too imprecise to be reliable, particularly in the case of automated
translation, as many of the documents were neither in French nor in English. This applied to 19
plans from 12 countries, making their content difficult to interpret accurately. Consequently, the
analysis grid has been used with 19 marine plans from the 11 countries that were intelligible to us.

4 RESULTS

This study is an in-depth examination of the operational component of MSP at a significant juncture,
but is not intended to be exhaustive. From the vast amount of documentation compiled, we have
opted to provide a synthesis of the results in this section and include detailed listings in the annexes.
The outline results of the analysis of 19 marine planning documents appear below (Table 2 and
Annex 2). These results focus solely on trends and overall proportions rather than a thorough
statistical analysis, which would lack significance due to the limited number of MSPs involved:

* Indicator I1: Marine ecosystems are documented for the entire planning area for 8 of the 19 MSP initiatives and are partially documented in 11 MSP initiatives in the maps published, notably the ones corresponding to protection zones.

For clarity, the result is illustrated with examples. All the plans and maps mentioned in the results
section are detailed in Annexes 1 and 2. A comparison of the marine ecosystem mapping data for
Ireland and the Netherlands revealed significant disparities. Ireland benefits from the support of
exhaustive coverage of its exclusive economic zone, as illustrated on the associated geoportal
(https://atlas.marine.ie) used to produce the maps. The online atlas also revealed the diversity and
richness of the available datasets, ranging from biodiversity to climate change and environmental
monitoring. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, only areas of ecological interest were mapped in
the environmental part of the MSP, Natura 2000 in particular (Fig.1). Closer observation reveals
that this data was not specifically produced for planning purposes but taken from other management
projects.
447 recognizing the limitations of bioeconomic data which do not capture the complexity of socio-
448 spatial relationships, such as for leisure activity. Our results reveal inconsistencies between
449 needs and data used in MSP, illustrated, for example, in Malta or Demnark MSP, where
450 zoning plans do not fully capture environmental reality. Furthermore, it is crucial to anticipate
451 potential biases related to data collection (Trouillet, 2019), particularly taking into account the
452 'internal' and 'external' quality of data (David & Fasquel, 1997; Devillers & Jeansoulin, 2006).
453 External data quality depends on its suitability for the project's need, as defined by Wang
454 and Strong (1996). However, MSP is facing data gaps based on two aspects: (1) time
455 constraints imposed for the production of the first plans (Directive 2014/89/EU in place in
456 2014 for the plan implementation by 2021 at the latest), which are the focus of this paper,
457 and (2) not all sea activities are monitored in a way that allows data to be generated, which
458 is what St. Martin & Hall-Arber (2008) call 'the missing layer', particularly for activities such
459 as small-scale fishing and for social, cultural, and sentimental aspects of marine space.
460 Indeed, this aspect of planning has recently been the subject of studies (see, for example,
461 Flannery et al., 2022; Gee et al., 2017; Ntona & Schröder, 2020; Pennino et al., 2021)
462 demonstrating the incompleteness of planning approaches that fail to mention these aspects
463 of marine areas. Despite the importance of non-spatial data, as highlighted by Shucksmith
464 and Kelly (2014), the academic literature often focuses on spatial data. This gap
465 underscores the need for a more holistic approach to data collection and use in planning.
466
467

466

## 4.2 Reading MSP through intra-action theory

468

469 This article illustrates several crucial aspects of ecosystem-based planning. Firstly, it reveals
470 an inconsistency both across borders and within national boundaries with regard to marine
471 plans. This divergence between national policies and the lack of harmonization between
472 regional plans underscores the challenges faced in seeking a coherent management of
473 marine ecosystems. For example, MSP for the French North Coast, placed side by side with
474 Belgium, reveals a major contradiction, since the vocation of the French side border is to
475 promote shipping, fishing, harbor, and offshore energy. On the other hand, the Belgian
476 border creates a large marine protection zone that has no continuity on the French side and
477 therefore comes to an abrupt halt between the two EEZs. Secondly, our findings point to a
478 disparity in the data used to develop the MSP. Although some plans effectively integrate
479 different data sources to generate new information, others simply overlay data without
480 creating significant new knowledge (Q2). In fact, 9 out of 19 cases use data overlay to
481 generate new information. However, 10 plans out of 19 use a data overlay without creating
482 new information from this combination. This cumulative use of data underlines the
483 importance of considering not only the availability of data but also its interpretation and
484 integration for an integrated understanding of marine space. Thirdly, the ecosystem-based
485 approach to MSP reveals complex interactions between data, human and non-human
486 actors, and the resulting policies. Such mutual relationships result in the notion of intra-
487 action, which underlines the constant dynamics that exist between the different elements of
488 marine systems. Indeed, only 8 out of 19 plans provide a mapped assessment of impacts,
489 although these plans are based on available data, which, as we point out in the first part of
490 this discussion, are highly dependent on the quality and processing of the data.
491 These results provide support for Kaufmann and Leese (2021) concept of information in-
492 information to understand the data lifecycle and the numerous trajectories that data can take,
493 depending on its 'interactions' and 'intra-action' with human and nonhuman actors as
494 theorized by Barad (2007). The notion of 'intra-action' is particularly interesting when thinking
495 about MSP, because unlike 'interaction', it is defined by a constant dynamic movement that
496 acts mutually between components of a system. Therefore, when planning for the multiuse
497 of marine space, each element becomes linked to another, and it is difficult to understand
498 the inner relationship between the 'node' of activity. In fact, this notion seems particularly
499 well suited to dynamic and mobile spaces such as marine space. This discussion highlights
500 the importance of rethinking data collection, analysis, and use practices in MSP to promote
501 fairer and more transparent governance. According to McCarthy & Thatcher (2019), critical
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1 – Netherlands’ integrated maritime spatial policy map</figcaption></figure>

Looking closely at the data sources, it is clear for both Ireland and the Netherlands that the data comes from various government bodies, not necessarily produced for planning purposes and often taken from other projects and recycled for MSP purposes. It is also important to note that access to metadata, which is essential for understanding how data is produced, is often hindered by a lack of translation or an uneven multilingual implementation, limiting its usability for the authors of this paper. This situation was particularly challenging for understanding the choices and processes involved in the production and representation of data.

* Indicator I2: in 9 of the 19 MSP initiatives, the plans use a combination of data related to ecosystems and human activities to generate new information as the basis for an ecosystem-based approach. In 10 MSP initiatives, the use of data related to ecosystems and human activities only resulted in a graphical overlay of information and did not generate any new information.
502 data studies are essential to understand governance. Firstly, because critical data studies
503 make it possible to break the 'hidden technocracy' (Obermeyer, 1995), in particular by
504 providing access to decision-making methods through geotechnologies or by understanding
505 which data are included and excluded from the process. This again brings us to the notion of
506 intra-action, where the entanglement of different components is a prior condition, rather than
507 the results of action. In line with this, Lupton (2016) argues that it is equally difficult to
508 understand the entanglement between data and society, since data act on society and
509 society acts on data through various assemblages (Kaufmann & Leese, 2021).
510

510

511 Finally, our paper shows the importance of understanding the data lifecycle and its impact on
512 decision-making. Considering the limited number of plans analyzed, more research is
513 needed to carefully analyze power-knowledge relations and study the various journeys of a
514 dataset to better understand their role in the policy-making process and marine space
515 governance. Furthermore, the lack of undigitized datasets (Gautreau, 2021) and social
516 dimensions (Cornu et al., 2014 ; Gee et al., 2017) in MSP raises questions about the
517 representativeness and inclusiveness of planning, especially in developing countries where
518 greater attention is even more required (Trouillet et al., 2023).
519

519

## Section 5. Conclusion

521

522 This paper has demonstrated that the ecosystem-based approach expected in MSP relies
523 heavily on fragmented data, which is often incomplete and lacks essential parameters such
524 as the temporal dimension. Data collected at high frequency and automatically is used, but
525 often distorted from its original purpose to meet planning need, raising concerns about its
526 relevance. Our research has highlighted that the absence of data specifically designed for
527 planning purposes leads to gaps in multidimensional plans, especially when it comes to
528 marine space, limiting their effectiveness. Technical constraints, data availability, and
529 political choices influence planning results, particularly with regard to ecosystem mapping
530 and the illustration of marine activities. Biases in the use of data and its mapping raise
531 questions about governance and information justice, highlighting the importance of a critical
532 approach to data and considering its use in the decision-making process for marine
533 planning. Also, by seeing things from a different angle, data could be a lever for including
534 stakeholders in participation. Despite this, today, data exclude (collection, processing,
535 interpretation...) more than they include stakeholders.
536

536 The Europe-wide examination which in theory should enable us to obtain a common
537 framework from Directive 2014/89/Eu in order to be able to compare data factory for each
538 plan, turned out in practice to be limited by the lack of intelligibility of the non-English-
539 speaking plans and the limitations of access to the databases. Despite limitations due to the
540 limited number of plans analyzes and the difficulty of following the data lifecycle through the
541 marine plan, we believe our work helps to highlight the different strategies used to develop
542 an ecosystem approach.
543

543 In this paper, we have highlighted the crucial role of data in marine planning, revealing that it
544 is not only a tool for visualizing state interest and economic visions of marine spaces, but
545 also a means by which these interest and visions are shapes because data are difficult to
546 access and, therefore, not easily questioned (McCarthy and Thatcher, 2019). These findings
547 underscore that, contrary to the ideal of an 'evidence-based' approach, MSP seems to be
548 driven more by political decisions justified a *posteriori* by the available data (Batty, 2022) and
549 validate our hypothesis based on the analysis of the first round of MSP. In addition, data
550 deserts are hidden or at least not explained, and processing algorithms are not explained or
551 justified, let alone discussed.
552

552 More research should investigate the map making of MSP such as those used to translate
553 the MSP into visual form in Europe. But once the map has been produced, it is already too
554 late to question the information and, above all, the data. This suggests the need to develop
555 upstream research to understand the relationships between states, technologies, and MSP
Taking Bulgaria as an example to explain this result, the data made available to document ecosystems was treated as zoning. The map in the MSP document shows an overlay of certain zonings but does not result in any new information (Fig. 2).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2 – Map of the Bulgaria Marine Spatial Plan</figcaption></figure>

The map is mainly descriptive and the lack of information resulting from the overlapping of zones illustrates the difficulty of incorporating all the dimensions of marine areas. One explanation for this could be the lack of information on the overlaid zones due to missing datasets, but may also be the result of representation choices. Since we were not able to access the metadata when this analysis was carried out (the document was not finalised at that time), no significant correlation can be noted.

* Indicator I3: in 8 of the 19 MSP initiatives, the choice of an ecosystem-based approach led to the creation of map-based impact indicators between data on natural ecosystems and human activities. In 11 MSP initiatives, the document did not establish impact indicators cartographically.

The French Mediterranean coast is a good example of this indicator, where local authorities employed an independent consulting firm to devise a system for assessing the impact of marine activities. The approach used is detailed in the annex to the planning document; data creation is determined from the scale used to assess impacts in relation to the actions set out in the plan. This impact assessment method is limited since some data was incomplete or unavailable. According to the MSP document notes, for example, little is known about the distribution of marine mammals in the Mediterranean by the *Office Français de la Biodiversité* (French National Institute for Biodiversity), which provided the data for MSP. The lack of available datasets means the impact cannot be assessed quantitatively. In this case, the lack of information means that no indicators can be mapped (Fig. 3).
556
557

in order to open up the mapping process, since this is one of the main action drivers for states that implement a marine plan.

558

559

## Acknowledgements

560
561
562
563
564
565

This paper has been supported by a doctoral grant from Nantes University and the Pays de la Loire Region. JD and BT contributed to the conception of this research. JD and BT provided insight and context to support interpretation of results. JD led the writing of the paper, data collection, and analysis. All co-authors contributed to the preparation, editing, and refining of the paper. All authors have approved the final manuscript.

566

567

## References

568

569
570

Barad, K. (2007). *Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning*. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128

571

Batty, M. (2018). *Inventing Future Cities*. MIT Press.

572

573

Batty, M. (2022). Planning data. *Urban Analytics and City Science, 0(0) 1-5*.

574

https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083221105496

575

576
577

Bridge, G., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., & Eyre, N. (2013). Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. *Energy Policy*, 53, 331–340.

578

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.066

579

580

Cornu, E. L., Kittinger, J. N., Koehn, J. Z., Finkbeiner, E. M., & Crowder, L. B. (2014).

581

Current Practice and Future Prospects for Social Data in Coastal and Ocean Planning:

582

Social Data in Coastal and Ocean Planning. *Conservation Biology*, 28(4), 902–911.

583

https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12310

584

585

Dalton, C., & Thatcher, J. E. (2014). What does a critical data studies look like, and do we care ? *Society + Space*. https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/what-does-a-critical-data-studies-look-like-and-why-do-we-care

586

587

588

589

David, B., & Fasquel, P. (1997). *Qualité d'une base de données géographique: Concepts et terminologie* (p. 53). Institut de géographie national. hal-02372984

590

591

592

Davret, J., Trouillet, B., & Toonen, H. (2024). The digital turn of marine planning: A global

593

analysis of ocean geoportals. *Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning*, 26(1), 75–90.

594

https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2023.2283081

595

596

Devillers, R., & Jeansoulin, R. (2006). *Fundamentals of Spatial Data Quality* (p. 312). ISTE

597

Publishing Company. https://hal-upec-upem.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00622300

598

599

Domínguez-Tejo, E., Metternicht, G., Johnston, E., & Hedge, L. (2016). Marine Spatial

600

Planning advancing the Ecosystem-Based Approach to coastal zone management : A

601

review. *Marine Policy*, 72, 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.023

602

603

Dosell, A., Edwards, D., Gregory, A., Ponteen, A., O'Garro, J., Cornick, L., & Hawkridge, J.

604

M. (2021). Using evidence from voluntary fisheries data collection programmes to support marine spatial planning and resolve multiple-use conflicts. *Frontiers in Marine Science*, 8,

605

635890. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.635890

606

607

608

Douvere, F. (2008). The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-

609

based sea use management. *Marine Policy*, 32(5), 762-771.

610

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.021
ENJEU MAMMIFERES MARINS ET TORTUES

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Source des données : évaluation environnementale du programme d'actions du DSF réalisée par Épices
Fond de carte : Enjeux écologiques en Méditerranée occidentale produite par l'AFB, 2018
Système de coordonnées : WSG84 / Pseudo Mercator
Edition : 01/2021, Épices

<caption>FIGURE 3 – Environmental impact assessment on Mediterranean marine mammals</caption>

* Indicator I4: the 19 MSP initiatives can provide only partial multidimensional mapping, for various reasons: not all human activities are included; certain marine biological areas are missing; one of the multidimensional variables of maritime space is absent (e.g. depth or time variable).

Wales is used to illustrate this indicator. The MSP data was supplied by the government for a specific purpose, most of it having been produced for the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Once again, it is unclear whether comprehensive multidimensional aspects of the marine space are unavailable due to a lack of specific data creation, processing, representation choices, or the technological limitations of the geoportals associated with marine plans (Davret et al., 2023).
611

612

Douvere, F., & Ehler, C. (2009). Ecosystem-Based Marine Spatial Management: An

613

Evolving Paradigm for the Management of Coastal and Marine Places. *Ocean Yearbook*

614

Online, 23(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1163/22116001-90000188

615

616

Ehler, C. (2008). Conclusions: Benefits, lessons learned, and future challenges of marine

617

spatial planning. *Marine Policy*, 32(5), 840-843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.014

618

619

European MSP Platform. (2018). *Technical Study « Maritie Spatial Planning (MSP) for Blue*

620

*Growth* », Handbook on MSP Indicators Development. https://www.msp-

621

platform.eu/practices/handbook-msp-indicatorsdevelopment

622

623

Flannery, W., Ounanian, K., Toonen, H., van Tatenhove, J., Murtagh, B., Ferguson, L.,

624

Delaney, A., Kenter, J., Azzopardi, E., Pita, C., Mylona, D., Witteveen, L., Hansen, C. J.,

625

Howells, M., Macias, J. V., Lamers, M., Sousa, L., da Silva, A. M. F., Taylor, S., ... Saimre,

626

T. (2022). Steering resilience in coastal and marine cultural heritage. *Maritime Studies*.

627

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-022-00265-2

628

629

Fogelman, C., & Bassett, T. J. (2017). Mapping for investability: Remaking land and maps in

630

Lesotho. *Geoforum*, 82, 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.07.008

631

632

Gautreau, P. (2021). *La Pachamama en bases de données: Géographie politique de*

633

l'information environnementale contemporaine. Éditions de l'IHEAL.

634

https://doi.org/10.4000/books.iheal.9362

635

636

Gee, K., Kannen, A., Adlam, R., Brooks, C., Chapman, M., Cormier, R., Fischer, C.,

637

Fletcher, S., Gubbins, M., Shucksmith, R., & Shellock, R. (2017). Identifying culturally

638

significant areas for marine spatial planning. *Ocean & Coastal Management*, 136, 139–147.

639

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.026

640

641

Gee, K., Kannen, A., Adlam, R., Brooks, C., Chapman, M., Cormier, R., Fischer, C.,

642

Fletcher, S., Gubbins, M., Shucksmith, R., & Shellock, R. (2017). Identifying culturally

643

significant areas for marine spatial planning. *Ocean & Coastal Management*, 136, 139–147.

644

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.026

645

646

Gilliland, P. M., & Laffoley, D. (2008). Key elements and steps in the process of developing

647

ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. *Marine Policy*, 32(5), 787-796.

648

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.022

649

650

Gregg, M. (2015). Inside the Data Spectacle. *Television & New Media*, 16(1), 37–51.

651

https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476414547774

652

653

Guinan, J., McKeon, C., O'Keeffe, E., Monteys, X., Sacchetti, F., Coughlan, M., & Nic

654

Aonghusa, C. (2021). INFOMAR data supports offshore energy development and marine

655

spatial planning in the Irish offshore via the EMODnet Geology portal. *Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology*, 54(1), qjegh2020-033.

656

657

https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2020-033

658

659

Hattam, C., Atkins, J. P., Beaumont, N., Börger, T., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Burdon, D., Groot,

660

R. de, Hoefnagel, E., Nunes, P. A. L. D., Piwowarczyk, J., Sastre, S., & Austen, M. C.

661

(2015). Marine ecosystem services : Linking indicators to their classification. *Ecological*

662

*Indicators*, 49, 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.026

663

664

Kaufmann, M., & Leese, M. (2021). Information In-Formation: Algorithmic Policing

665

and the Life of Data. In A. Završnik & V. Badalič (Eds.), *Automating Crime Prevention*,
<table><caption>TABLE 2 – Results of 19 MSP initiatives analysis (details in Annex 2)</caption><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>Plan Area</th><th>I1</th><th>I2</th><th>I3</th><th>I4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Finland</td><td>EEZ</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>EEZ</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>EEZ</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>Mediterranean sea</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>Easter English Channel - North Sea</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>North Atlantic - Western English Channel</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>South Atlantic</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>EEZ</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>East England</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Northern Ireland</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Scotland</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>South England</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Wales</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>Baltic Sea</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>North Sea</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>EEZ</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>EEZ</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>Malta</td><td>EEZ</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>EEZ</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>Partially</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>No</td></tr></tfoot></table>

As highlighted in Table 2, our analysis of 19 MSP documents from around Europe reveals that an ecosystem-based approach to marine spaces is often incomplete, particularly in terms of mapping. From the data shown in Table 2, it is apparent that given the multidimensional nature of marine space, a wide range of data is required (such as spatial sea bottom and surface data, temporal data, etc.). However, these requirements are likely to encounter limitations in terms of techniques, knowledge, tools or the media used to transcribe them.

Table 2, which answers our three main questions, demonstrates that:

* (Q1) Plans with detailed ecosystem mapping tend to use data that highlights the spatial variability of ecosystems, while those with partial mapping often use fragmented data, including zoning data;

* (Q2) Plans that incorporate data overlay to generate new information generally provide mapped impact indicators, unlike maps that overlay data without creating new information;

* (Q3) Data manipulated and used in the plans we examined does not allow for a completely multidimensional approach, and the limitations inherent to this problem, such as technological constraints, data production, processing and representation choice, often remain unidentified.

In general, these results indicate that there are gaps in ecosystem-based approaches, particularly in terms of mapping. Although marine ecosystems are documented comprehensively in some plans, others are only partially documented, underscoring the disparities between MSPs. While some initiatives effectively integrate data from ecosystems and human activities to generate new information and impact indicators, others simply overlay data without creating any meaningful new insights. Data limitations and technological constraints often impede a comprehensive multidimensional approach to MSP, emphasising the need to improve data accessibility, comprehensiveness and integration for more effective marine planning.
666 *Surveillance, and Military Operations*. Springer International Publishing.

667 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73276-9

668 Kitchin, R. (2021). *Data lives: How data are made and shape our world*. Bristol University

669 Press.

670
671 Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2007). Rethinking maps. *Progress in Human Geography*, 31(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507077082

672
673
674 Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2014). *Code/space: Software and everyday life*. Mit Press.

675
676 Lehman, J. (2016). A sea of potential : The politics of global ocean observations. *Political Geography*, 55, 113-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.09.006

678
679 Lequesne, B., & Souf, A. (2023). *Policy Brief on Strengthening Data sharing for informed decision-making in Maritime Spatial Planning*. Policy brief of the eMSP NSBR Data Sharing,
680 Information & Communication Technologies Serving MSP
681
682 Learning Strand. https://www.emspproject.eu/results

683
684 Leroy, Y. (2018). *Cartographie critique de réalités géographiques* [Thèse de doctorat].

685 Université de Nantes.

686
687 Li, T. M. (2014). What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment. *Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers*, 39(4), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12065

689
690 Lupton, D. (2016). Digital companion species and eating data: Implications for theorising digital data-human assemblages. *Big Data & Society*, 3(1), 205395171561994.

692 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715619947

693
694 Martín Míguez, B., Novellino, A., Vinci, M., Claus, S., Calewaert, J.-B., Vallius, H., Schmitt, T., Pititto, A., Giorgetti, A., Askew, N., Iona, S., Schaap, D., Pinardi, N., Harpham, Q., Kater, B. J., Populus, J., She, J., Palazov, A. V., McMeel, O., ... Hernandez, F. (2019). The European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) : Visions and Roles of the Gateway to Marine Data in Europe. *Frontiers in Marine Science*, 6, 313.

699 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00313

700
701 McCarthy, J., & Thatcher, J. (2019). Visualizing new political ecologies: A critical data studies analysis of the World Bank's renewable energy resource mapping initiative. *Geoforum*, 102, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.025

703 *Geoforum*, 102, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.025

704
705 McCarthy, J., & Thatcher, J. (2019). Visualizing new political ecologies: A critical data studies analysis of the World Bank's renewable energy resource mapping initiative. *Geoforum*, 102, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.025

707 *Geoforum*, 102, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.025

708
709 McGowan, J., Hines, E., Elliott, M., Howar, J., Dransfield, A., Nur, N., & Jahncke, J. (2013).

710 Using seabird habitat modeling to inform marine spatial planning in central California's
711 National Marine Sanctuaries. *PLoS One*, 8(8), e71406.

712 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071406

713
714 MSP Data Study. (2016). *Executive Summary, Technical Study under the Assistance Mechanism for the implementation of Maritie Spatial Planning*. (p. 136). European

716 Commission European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency.

717 https://doi.org/doi: 10.2826/25289

718
This result highlights the differences in availability and nature of the environmental data used in different European countries, and the challenges associated with understanding data production in the context of maritime planning.

# 5 DISCUSSION

This study examines a variety of aspects relevant to MSP, focusing on the analysis of data used in the planning process. This reinforces the intra-action theory and demonstrates the benefit of examining the data lifecycle in critical data studies to better understand how marine space is governed. A lack of data transparency or completeness reveals the limits of evidence-based governance policies.

## 5.1 Examining data quality through map-making

Interestingly, the results of our analysis of the data approach to marine planning reveal that, beyond the factual responses to the indicators, the majority of data was produced by government agencies responsible for previous management projects and rarely for planning purposes specifically, as observed from the sources and year of creation attributed to the data used in the plans we analysed. It is clear that data production analysis is highly dependent on information processing, representation and dissemination choices. In the absence of systematic and intelligible access to all metadata, it is difficult to distinguish particular stages of the data lifecycle. These findings raise questions about the quality and completeness of the data used to achieve the ambitious objectives of the ecosystem-based approach. The results reinforce the need to reflect on the analysis and evaluation of data, from any pre-processing carried out to decisions on how to present it for specific purposes such as planning.

The results from the review of plans reveal significant gaps in ecosystem mapping: based on our indicators, ecosystem mapping is often partial (11 cases out of 19); the combination of information does not lead to new information (10 cases out of 19); the multidimensional approach is flawed (all cases). This weakness is often the result of technical constraints, poor data availability and conscious or unconscious political choices. The findings highlight the limits of the ‘evidence’ available to guide planning decisions in ‘evidence-based’ planning.

Critical studies are used to discuss the relationships between decision-making and data. As Gregg (2015) points out in reference to the 'spectacle of data', data visualisation can be a 'fantasy of command and control through seeing' (p. 1) by delivering an ordered and prescriptive vision of space. MSP maps can actually be an effective tool of governance and power. They are not neutral representations of reality, but shaped by political choices and specific interests. Consequently, maps can hide or marginalise certain claims when used for marine space, while favouring others (Bridge et al., 2013). Similarly, McCarthy & Thatcher (2019) point out that it is mostly collective claims and informal use that are missing from maps due to lack of data. Finally, two ways of assessing the effect that maps and, by extension, the data used in maps, can have on the public stand out: (1) according to Li (2014), Scott (1998) and Wood & Fels (1992), maps are a tool or power in themselves, or (2) maps do nothing in themselves; it depends on how people use them (Fogelman & Bassett, 2017; Kitchin & Dodge, 2007, 2014). In line with McCarthy & Thatcher (2019) and Kitchin & Dodge (2007), we argue that maps are dependent on the social network in which they operate and where they evolve, but are also heavily constrained by the data and geotechnologies used.

The desired outcome was to trace the lifecycle of the data used for planning, but difficulties were encountered in accessing the metadata, mainly because the planning process was still underway at the time and not all the planning geoportals were available. The thing that stands out overall is that the ecosystem-based approach advocated and expected by MSP is based on data collected for the purpose, i.e. collected on an ad-hoc basis, not intended to incorporate all the parameters needed to represent the marine space (the temporal or seasonal dimension, for example), and not data collected automatically on a regular basis (e.g. fishing activity, which appears as automatically-collected
719 Ntona, M., & Schröder, M. (2020). Regulating oceanic imaginaries: The legal construction of space, identities, relations and epistemological hierarchies within marine spatial planning.

720 Maritime Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00163-5

722

723 Obermeyer, N. J. (1995). The Hidden GIS Technocracy. *Cartography and Geographic*

724 Information Systems, 22(1), 78–83. https://doi.org/10.1559/152304095782540609

725

726 Pennino, M. G., Brodie, S., Frainer, A., Lopes, P. F. M., Lopez, J., Ortega-Cisneros, K.,

727 Selim, S., & Vaidianu, N. (2021). The Missing Layers: Integrating Sociocultural Values Into

728 Marine Spatial Planning. *Frontiers in Marine Science*, 8, 633198.

729 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.633198

730

731 Ryan, K., Danylchuk, A., & Jordaan, A. (2018). Is Marine Spatial Planning Enough to

732 Overcome Biological Data Deficiencies? *Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and*

733 Management, 20(04), 1850012. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333218500126

734

735 Said, A., & Trouillet, B. (2020). Bringing ‘Deep Knowledge’ of Fisheries into Marine Spatial

736 Planning. *Maritime Studies*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00178-y

737

738 Schaefer, N., & Barale, V. (2011). Maritime spatial planning : Opportunities & challenges in

739 the framework of the EU integrated maritime policy. *Journal of Coastal Conservation*, 15(2),

740 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-011-0154-3

741

742 Scott, J. (1998). *Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition*

743 Have Failed (Yale University Press).

744

745 Shepperson, J. L., Hintzen, N. T., Szostek, C. L., Bell, E., Murray, L. G., & Kaiser, M. J.

746 (2018). A comparison of VMS and AIS data: The effect of data coverage and vessel position

747 recording frequency on estimates of fishing footprints. *ICES Journal of Marine Science*,

748 75(3), 988–998. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx230

749

750 Shucksmith, R. J., & Kelly, C. (2014). Data collection and mapping – Principles, processes

751 and application in marine spatial planning. *Marine Policy*, 50, 27–33.

752 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.05.006

753

754 St. Martin, K., & Hall-Arber, M. (2008). The missing layer: Geo-technologies, communities,

755 and implications for marine spatial planning. *Marine Policy*, 32(5), 779–786.

756 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.015

757

758 Stamoulis, K. A., & Delevaux, J. M. S. (2015). Data requirements and tools to operationalize

759 marine spatial planning in the United States. *Ocean & Coastal Management*, 116, 214-223.

760 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.011

761

762 Strain, L., Rajabifard, A., & Williamson, I. (2006). Marine administration and spatial data

763 infrastructure. *Marine Policy*, 30(4), 431-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2005.03.005

764

765 Trouillet, B. (2019). Aligning with dominant interests : The role played by geo-technologies in

766 the place given to fisheries in marine spatial planning. *Geoforum*, S0016718519303008.

767 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.10.012

768

769 Trouillet, B. (2020). Reinventing marine spatial planning: A critical review of initiatives

770 worldwide. *Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning*, 22(4), 441–459.

771 https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1751605

772
data), which is not produced with planning in mind. High-frequency and automated data is often
collected for monitoring purposes, not management purposes (Said & Trouillet, 2020), which
means that planning decisions are made without the benefit of data created specifically to meet their
needs and subsequently justified with pre-existing data.

This article does not suggest that data recycling is inherently positive or negative; on the contrary, it acknowledges the existence of data recycling in marine planning and goes on to discuss the limits of this recycling with particular reference to the use of management data, which serves a different purpose to that of planning. While it is unrealistic to expect all the data to be high quality, it is nevertheless counter-productive to use management data (e.g. fish stock data) to plan activities. Our findings tend to support the theory put forward by Batty (2018, 2022), which raises the same issue for urban planning, deploring the fact that planning is based on downstream data rather than upstream data.

There are clear discrepancies between MSP requirements and the data actually used, as evidenced
by the results (Q1), revealing that ecosystems are only partially documented in 11 out of 19 cases.
Evidence-based planning requires a meticulous approach to produce adequate data to address spatial
management challenges, which is not the case, according to our results. This would suggest that the
limitations of bioeconomic data which fails to capture the complexity of socio-spatial relationships,
such as leisure activities, should be acknowledged. The results of this study reveal inconsistencies
between MSP requirements and the data used, as illustrated in the Maltese and Danish MSPs, where
zoning plans do not fully capture the true environmental situation. It is also important to be aware
of potential biases related to data collection (Trouillet, 2019), especially the ‘internal’ and ‘external’
quality of the data (David & Fasquel, 1997; Devillers & Jeansoulin, 2006). External data quality
depends on its suitability for the project requirements, as defined by Wang and Strong (1996), and
in this respect the MSP data is hampered by gaps on two levels: (1) the time constraint imposed for
production of the first plans (Directive 2014/89/EU in place in 2014 for implementation by 2021 at
the latest), which is the focus of this paper; (2) not all sea activities are monitored in a way that is
conducive to data generation, referred to by St. Martin & Hall-Arber (2008) as the ‘missing layer’
with particular reference to activities such as small-scale fishing and the social, cultural, and
sentimental aspects of marine space. This aspect of planning has recently been the subject of other
studies (e.g. Flannery et al., 2022; Gee et al., 2017; Ntona & Schröder, 2020; Pennino et al., 2021),
demonstrating the incompleteness of planning approaches that fail to mention these aspects of
marine areas. Despite the importance of non-spatial data, as highlighted by Shucksmith and Kelly
(2014), the academic literature often focuses on spatial data. This gap underscores the need for a
more holistic approach to data collection and use in planning.

Within the context of an ecosystem-based approach, it is important to highlight the limitations of this approach. Ecosystem mapping, as typically interpreted in MSP, cannot fully capture the complex and dynamic relationships that underpin marine ecosystems. The ecological interactions between species are rarely comprehensively integrated into the datasets used for marine planning, making any attempt at ecosystem mapping inherently partial and incomplete. The challenge lies in the very nature of the ecosystem-based approach, which aims to integrate a broad range of dimensions, but in practice is constrained by the difficulty of obtaining sufficiently comprehensive data to represent the complexity of ecological interactions. Therefore, the concept of an ecosystem-based approach, in its strictest sense, should be reconsidered to focus on more specific representations, such as habitat or species mapping, while acknowledging that the full complexity of marine ecosystems exceeds what can be spatially represented with current data. This suggests that the ecosystem-based concept in MSP should be redefined to emphasise more tangible and measurable relationships between different elements, while being realistic about the limitations of available data.
773 Trouillet, B. et al (2023) Chapter 10. The information challenges of marine spatial planning.

774 Lessons learned from small-scale fisheries in Senegal. In Bertrand, S., & Bonnin, M. (Eds)

775 Marine spatial planning in the tropical Atlantic. From a Tower of Babel to collective intelligence. IRD Editions, 229-256. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.irdeditions.46650

777

778 UNESCO-COI. (2021). Rapport technique sur les conditions actuelles et la compatibilité des usages du milieu marin en Méditerranée occidentale (n° 160; Série technique de la COI).

779 UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000376068_fre

781

782 Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data Consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5-33.

784 https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099

785

786 Weatherdon, L., Martin, C. S., Mcowen, C., & Hannah, T. (2015). Towards a global dataset of seagrass occurrences: Current progress, knowledge gaps and challenges. PeerJ

788 PrePrints. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1161v1

789

790 Wood, D., & Fels, J. (1992). The Power of Maps. Guilford Press.

791

792 Zaucha, J. (2014). The key to governing the fragile Baltic Sea: Maritime spatial planning in the Baltic Sea region and way forward. VASAB.
## 5.2 Reading MSP through intra-action theory

This article illustrates several important aspects of ecosystem-based planning. First, the inconsistency in marine plans both across borders and within national boundaries. This divergence between national policies and the absence of harmonisation between regional plans is indicative of the challenges attached to establishing a coherent management plan for marine ecosystems. One example is the discrepancy between the MSPs of Belgium and the North French Coast, which share a border. The vocation of the French side of the border is to promote shipping, fishing, harbours and offshore energy, while that of Belgium is to create a large marine protection zone that does not continue on the French side and ends abruptly where the two EEZs meet. Discontinuities such as these are a problem but are also indicative of the autonomy and responsibility of different countries. Second, the findings point to a disparity in the data used to develop the MSPs. The integration of data from different sources is achieved effectively in some plans to generate new information, but in others the data is simply overlaid without creating any significant new knowledge (Q2). In 9 out of 19 cases new information is created from data overlay, but in 10 of the 19 plans no new information is created by combining the data. This cumulative use of data underlines the importance of considering not only the availability of data but also its interpretation and integration to gain an overall understanding of marine space. Third, the ecosystem-based approach to MSP reveals complex interactions between data, human and non-human actors and the resulting policies. These mutual relationships result in the notion of intra-action, which underlines the constant dynamics that exist between the different elements of marine systems. Only 8 out of 19 plans provide a mapped assessment of impacts, although these plans are based on available data, which, as mentioned above, is highly dependent on quality and processing.

These results tend to support the Kaufmann and Leese (2021) concept of information in-formation to understand the data lifecycle and the numerous trajectories that data can take, depending on its interactions and intra-action with human and non-human actors, as theorised by Barad (2007). The notion of intra-action is especially significant in relation to MSP, because unlike interaction it is defined by a constant dynamic movement that acts mutually between the components of a system. When planning the multiuse of marine space, therefore, each element becomes linked to another and the inner relationship between the ‘node’ of activity is difficult to understand. This notion seems particularly relevant for dynamic and mobile spaces such as marine space. In this context, the concept of digital ecology (Turnbull et al., 2023) adds another layer to the discussion. Digital ecology enables an alternative concept of governance operations and the interactions between data, digital technologies and ecological systems. It views data as the co-constituent elements of a network of entangled interactions, where the collection and analysis of data and its use in MSP are no longer perceived as a neutral or purely technocratic process.

As McCarthy & Thatcher (2019) point out, critical data studies are essential to understand governance because they help to unveil the ‘hidden technocracy’ (Obermeyer, 1995). In this regard, digital ecologies reveal the ethical and political implications of technological choices and the data systems underlying environmental governance, highlighting which aspects are included or excluded in the decision-making process. With digital ecology we can view digital entanglement as a precondition for intra-actions between data and actors, both human and non-human. This aligns with Lupton’s (2016) view that it is difficult to understand the entanglement between data and society, as data acts on society and, conversely, society acts on data through various assemblages (Kaufmann & Leese, 2021). This perspective sheds light on new ways of approaching marine space governance, promoting more equitable and transparent governance by using data critically within the framework of digital ecologies. Our approach introduces a new perspective to the data lifecycle, which is traditionally viewed through the different phases of the data - from production to deletion. It is essential to also consider the lifecycle in the context of entanglement with both human and non-human factors.
Finally, this study reveals the importance of understanding the data used and its impact on decision-making. The number of plans analysed for this study was limited; more research is needed for a thorough analysis of power-knowledge relationships and consideration of the varied journeys of datasets to better understand their role in the policy-making process and marine space governance. The absence of undigitised datasets (Gautreau, 2021) and social dimensions (Cornu et al., 2014; Gee et al., 2017) in MSP raises questions about how representative and inclusive planning can be, especially in developing countries where even greater attention is required (Trouillet et al., 2023).

# 6 CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the ecosystem-based approach expected for MSP relies on fragmented and often incomplete data, lacking critical parameters such as the temporal dimension. Data that is collected on a regular, automated basis is often repurposed to fit planning needs in ways that distort its original intent, raising serious concerns about its validity. Our research reveals that where data is not explicitly designed for planning, it results in significant gaps in multidimensional plans, particularly in the marine context, which limits their overall effectiveness. While the MSP directive calls for the use of the 'best available data', our findings indicate that the notion of 'availability' often translates into a reliance on recycled or repurposed datasets that were not originally intended for MSP. As a result, plans are shaped by technical constraints, data availability, and political choices in terms of ecosystem mapping and the representation of marine activities.

These biases in data use and mapping underscore critical issues of governance and information justice, highlighting the need for a more nuanced approach to data and its role in decision-making for marine planning. Specifically, while the use of the best available data is a pragmatic and necessary starting point, our analysis suggests that it is not always sufficient to address the complexity and multidimensionality of MSP. This underscores a clear need to produce data specifically tailored for planning purposes, ensuring that it better supports multidimensional objectives and reduces the risks of exclusion or misrepresentation.

The current lifecycle of data, from production through interpretation to deletion, tends to exclude stakeholders, which is a major issue for the inclusivity and legitimacy required for MSP. By rethinking the way data is produced and integrated into planning processes, it could become a powerful tool not only for improving the technical quality of plans but also for fostering stakeholder participation and enhancing the overall legitimacy of MSP initiatives.

This Europe-wide examination that should have produced a common framework from Directive 2014/89/EU to compare data production for the different plans, was in practice limited by inability to interpret the plans not written in English and limited access to databases. Despite the limitations - the restricted number of plans analysed and the difficulties in tracing the data lifecycle via the marine plan - we believe this work has contributed by highlighting the various strategies used to develop an ecosystem-based approach. The conclusions are also limited by having targeted only plans devised in the European context, where there is a certain degree of homogenisation in spite of the findings; the results may well have been different if the study had been carried out at international level.

This paper underscores the crucial role that data plays in marine planning, revealing that it is not just a way of viewing government engagement with marine space and economic visions for it, but also a means by which the engagement and visions are shaped, because data is subject to restricted access and therefore not easily questioned (McCarthy and Thatcher, 2019). The findings reveal that, contrary to the ideal of an 'evidence-based' approach, MSP seems to be driven more by political decisions justified a *posteriori* than by the data available (Batty, 2022), since the data available or used may be only partial. However, the plans are still needed. This validates our hypothesis based on analysis of the first round of MSP. In addition, data deserts are hidden or at least not explained, and the processing algorithms are not explained or justified, let alone discussed.
More research is needed to investigate the production of maps for MSP, such as those used to translate the MSP into visual form in Europe. Once a map has been produced, it is already too late to question the information, and above all the data. However, in practice, spatialising information often helps assess whether the data is adequate or not. This suggests a need to develop upstream research to understand the relationships between states, technologies, and MSP to facilitate thorough investigation of the mapping process, which is one of the main action drivers for governments that implement marine spatial plans.

## REFERENCES

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128

Batty, M. (2018). Inventing Future Cities. MIT Press.

Batty, M. (2022). Planning data. Urban Analytics and City Science, 0(0) 1-5.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083221105496

Bridge, G., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., & Eyre, N. (2013). Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy, 53, 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.066

Cornu, E. L., Kittinger, J. N., Koehn, J. Z., Finkbeiner, E. M., & Crowder, L. B. (2014). Current Practice and Future Prospects for Social Data in Coastal and Ocean Planning: Social Data in Coastal and Ocean Planning. Conservation Biology, 28(4), 902–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12310

Dalton, C., & Thatcher, J. E. (2014). What does a critical data studies look like, and do we care? Society + Space.
https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/what-does-a-critical-data-studies-look-like-and-why-do-we-care

David, B., & Fasquel, P. (1997). Qualité d'une base de données géographique : Concepts et terminologie (p. 53). Institut de géographie national. hal-02372984

Davret, J., Trouillet, B., & Toonen, H. (2023). The digital turn of marine planning: A global analysis of ocean geoportals. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 26(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2023.2283081

Devillers, R., & Jeansoulin, R. (2006). Fundamentals of Spatial Data Quality (p. 312). ISTE Publishing Company.
https://hal-upec-upem.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00622300

Domínguez-Tejo, E., Metternicht, G., Johnston, E., & Hedge, L. (2016). Marine Spatial Planning advancing the Ecosystem-Based Approach to coastal zone management: A review. Marine Policy, 72, 115-130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.023

Dosell, A., Edwards, D., Gregory, A., Ponteen, A., O'Garro, J., Cornick, L., & Hawkridge, J. M. (2021). Using evidence from voluntary fisheries data collection programmes to support marine spatial planning and resolve multiple-use conflicts. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 635890. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.635890

Douvere, F. (2008). The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine Policy, 32(5), 762-771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.021

Douvere, F., & Ehler, C. (2009). Ecosystem-Based Marine Spatial Management: An Evolving Paradigm for the Management of Coastal and Marine Places. Ocean Yearbook Online, 23(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1163/22116001-90000188

Ehler, C. (2008). Conclusions: Benefits, lessons learned, and future challenges of marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 32(5), 840-843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.014

Flannery, W., Ounanian, K., Toonen, H., van Tatenhove, J., Murtagh, B., Ferguson, L., Delaney, A., Kenter, J., Azzopardi, E., Pita, C., Mylona, D., Witteveen, L., Hansen, C. J., Howells, M., Macias, J. V., Lamers, M., Sousa, L., da Silva, A. M. F., Taylor, S., ... Saimre, T. (2022). Steering resilience in coastal and marine cultural heritage. Maritime Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-022-00265-2

Fogelman, C., & Bassett, T. J. (2017). Mapping for investability: Remaking land and maps in Lesotho. Geoforum, 82, 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.07.008

Gautreau, P. (2021). La Pachamama en bases de données: Géographie politique de l'information environnementale contemporaine. Éditions de l'IHEAL. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.iheal.9362

Gee, K., Kannen, A., Adlam, R., Brooks, C., Chapman, M., Cormier, R., Fischer, C., Fletcher, S., Gubbins, M., Shucksmith, R., & Shellock, R. (2017). Identifying culturally significant areas for marine spatial planning. Ocean & Coastal Management, 136, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.026

Gilliland, P. M., & Laffoley, D. (2008). Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 32(5), 787-796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.022
Gregg, M. (2015). Inside the Data Spectacle. Television & New Media, 16(1), 37–51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476414547774

Guinan, J., McKeon, C., O'Keeffe, E., Monteys, X., Sacchetti, F., Coughlan, M., & Nic Aonghusa, C. (2021). INFOMAR data supports offshore energy development and marine spatial planning in the Irish offshore via the EMODnet Geology portal. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 54(1), qjegh2020-033.
https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2020-033

Hattam, C., Atkins, J. P., Beaumont, N., Börger, T., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Burdon, D., Groot, R. de, Hoefnagel, E., Nunes, P. A. L. D., Piwowarczyk, J., Sastre, S., & Austen, M. C. (2015). Marine ecosystem services: Linking indicators to their classification. Ecological Indicators, 49, 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.026

Hollin, G., Forsyth, I., Giraud, E., & Potts, T. (2017). (Dis)entangling Barad: Materialisms and ethics. Social Studies of Science, 47(6), 918–941.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717728344

Holzhüter, W., Luhtala, H., Hansen, H.S., Schiele, K. (2019). Lost in space and time? A conceptual framework to harmonise data for marine spatial planning. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 14, 108–132.
https://doi.org/10.2902/ijsdir.v14i0.494

Kaufmann, M., & Leese, M. (2021). Information In-Formation: Algorithmic Policing and the Life of Data. In A. Završnik & V. Badalič (Eds.), Automating Crime Prevention, Surveillance, and Military Operations. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73276-9

Kitchin, R. (2021). Data lives: How data are made and shape our world. Bristol University Press.

Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2007). Rethinking maps. Progress in Human Geography, 31(3), 331–344.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507077082

Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2014). Code/space: Software and everyday life. Mit Press.

Lehman, J. (2016). A sea of potential: The politics of global ocean observations. Political Geography, 55, 113-123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.09.006

Lequesne, B., & Souf, A. (2023). Policy Brief on Strengthening Data sharing for informed decision-making in Maritime Spatial Planning. Policy brief of the eMSP NSBR Data Sharing, Information & Communication Technologies Serving MSP. Learning Strand. https://www.emsproject.eu/results

Leroy, Y. (2018). Cartographie critique de réalités géographiques [Thèse de doctorat]. Université de Nantes.

Li, T. M. (2014). What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39(4), 589–602.
https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12065

Lupton, D. (2016). Digital companion species and eating data: Implications for theorising digital data-human assemblages. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 205395171561994. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715619947

Martín Míguez, B., Novellino, A., Vinci, M., Claus, S., Calewaert, J.-B., Vallius, H., Schmitt, T., Pititto, A., Giorgetti, A., Askew, N., Iona, S., Schaap, D., Pinardi, N., Harpham, Q., Kater, B. J., Populus, J., She, J., Palazov, A. V., McMeel, O., Oset, P., Lear D., Manzella, G. M. R., Gorringe, P., Simoncelli, S., Larkin, K., Holdsworth, N., Arvanitidis, C. D., Molina Jack, M. E., Chaves Montero, M. del Mar, Herman, P. M. J., Hernandez, F. (2019). The European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet): Visions and Roles of the Gateway to Marine Data in Europe. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00313

McCarthy, J., & Thatcher, J. (2019). Visualizing new political ecologies: A critical data studies analysis of the World Bank's renewable energy resource mapping initiative. Geoforum, 102, 242–254.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.025

McGowan, J., Hines, E., Elliott, M., Howar, J., Dransfield, A., Nur, N., & Jahncke, J. (2013). Using Seabird Habitat Modeling to Inform Marine Spatial Planning in Central California’s National Marine Sanctuaries. PLOS ONE, 8(8), e71406.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071406

MSP Data Study. (2016). Executive Summary, Technical Study under the Assistance Mechanism for the implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning. (p. 136). European Commission European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency. https://doi.org/doi: 10.2826/25289

Ntona, M., & Schröder, M. (2020). Regulating oceanic imaginaries: The legal construction of space, identities, relations and epistemological hierarchies within marine spatial planning. Maritime Studies, 19(3), 241–254.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00163-5

Obermeyer, N. J. (1995). The Hidden GIS Technocracy. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 22(1), 78–83.
https://doi.org/10.1559/152304095782540609

Pennino, M. G., Brodie, S., Frainer, A., Lopes, P. F. M., Lopez, J., Ortega-Cisneros, K., Selim, S., & Vaidianu, N. (2021). The Missing Layers: Integrating Sociocultural Values Into Marine Spatial Planning. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 633198. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.633198
Ryan, K., Danylchuk, A., & Jordaan, A. (2018). Is Marine Spatial Planning Enough to Overcome Biological Data Deficiencies? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 20(04), 1850012. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333218500126

Said, A., & Trouillet, B. (2020). Bringing ‘Deep Knowledge’ of Fisheries into Marine Spatial Planning. Maritime Studies, 19(3), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00178-y

Schaefer, N., & Barale, V. (2011). Maritime spatial planning : Opportunities & challenges in the framework of the EU integrated maritime policy. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 15(2), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-011-0154-3

Schwartz-Belkin, I., Portman, M.E. (2023). A review of geospatial technologies for improving Marine Spatial Planning: Challenges and opportunities. Ocean & Coastal Management 231, 106280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106280

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nq3vk

Shepperson, J. L., Hintzen, N. T., Szostek, C. L., Bell, E., Murray, L. G., & Kaiser, M. J. (2018). A comparison of VMS and AIS data: The effect of data coverage and vessel position recording frequency on estimates of fishing footprints. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75(3), 988–998. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx230

Shucksmith, R. J., & Kelly, C. (2014). Data collection and mapping – Principles, processes and application in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 50, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.05.006

St. Martin, K., & Hall-Arber, M. (2008). The missing layer: Geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 32(5), 779–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.015

Stamoulis, K. A., & Delevaux, J. M. S. (2015). Data requirements and tools to operationalize marine spatial planning in the United States. Ocean & Coastal Management, 116, 214-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.011

Strain, L., Rajabifard, A., & Williamson, I. (2006). Marine administration and spatial data infrastructure. Marine Policy, 30(4), 431-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2005.03.005

Trouillet, B. (2019). Aligning with dominant interests : The role played by geo-technologies in the place given to fisheries in marine spatial planning. Geoforum, S0016718519303008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.10.012

Trouillet, B. (2020). Reinventing marine spatial planning: A critical review of initiatives worldwide. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1751605

Trouillet, B. et al (2023) Chapter 10. The information challenges of marine spatial planning. Lessons learned from small-scale fisheries in Senegal. In Bertrand, S., & Bonnin, M. (Eds) Marine spatial planning in the tropical Atlantic. From a Tower of Babel to collective intelligence. IRD Editions, 229-256. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.irdeditions.46650

Turnbull, J., Searle, A., Hartman Davies, O., Dodsworth, J., Chasseray-Peraldi, P., von Essen, E., Anderson-Elliott, H. (2023). Digital ecologies: Materialities, encounters, governance. Progress in Environmental Geography 2, 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/27539687221145698

Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data Consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099

Weatherdon, L., Martin, C. S., Mcowen, C., & Hannah, T. (2015). Towards a global dataset of seagrass occurrences : Current progress, knowledge gaps and challenges. PeerJ PrePrints. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1161v1

Wood, D., & Fels, J. (1992). The power of maps. Guilford Press.
A ANNEX 1

European Marine Spatial Plan (source : European MSP Platform<fnref n="5" />, 2022)

<table><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td>Plan area</td><td>Document</td><td>Materials available in French or in English</td><td>URL (verified in December 2022)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>North Sea</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.health.belgium.be/sites/default/files/uploads/fields/fpshealth/_theme_file/19094275/Summary%20Marine%20Spatial%20Plan.pdf</td></tr><tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>EEZ</td><td>Draft document</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.mrrb.bg/en/the-draft-maritime-spatial-plan-of-the-republic-of-bulgaria-2021-2035-has-been-finally-adopted-by-the-national-expert-council-on-spatial-planning-and-regional-policy/</td></tr><tr><td>Croatia</td><td>No comprehensive national plan</td><td>No access</td><td>No information</td><td>No information</td></tr><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>EEZ</td><td>In progress</td><td>No information</td><td>No information</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>EEZ</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://havplan.dk/en/page/info</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>Estonian Maritime Act</td><td>In progress</td><td>No information</td><td>No information</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>Marine space plan of Hiiu Island</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://maakonnapla-neering.ec/et/hiiu-maakonnagapiirneva-mereala-maakonnapla-neering</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>Marine Spatial Plan of the bay area of Pärnu</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://maakonnapla-neering.ec/143</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>EEZ</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://meriskenaariot.info/me-rialuesuunnitelma/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Finnish-Maritime-Spatial-Plan-2030-Making-Card-Library.pdf</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>South Atlantic</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.dirm.sud-atlantique.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/volet-strategique-du-dsf-la-strategie-de-facade-r812.html</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>North Atlantic - Western English Channel</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.dirm.nord-atlantique-manche-ouest.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/strategie-de-facade-maritime-nord-atlantique-a1070.html</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>Easter English Channel - North Sea</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.dirm.memn.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/document-synthetique-sfm-a953.html</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>Mediterranean sea</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.dirm.mediterraneedeveloppement-durable.gouv.fr/document-strategique-de-facade-mediterraneanr335.html?lang=fr</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>Marine Spatial Plan for the territorial sea - Schleswig-Holstein</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/fachinhalte/L/landesplanung-raumordnung/allgemein/landesplanung_aufgaben_instrumente</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>Marine Spatial Plan for the territorial sea of the Baltic Sea</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://www.regierung-mv.de/Landesregierung/em/</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="5">5 https://maritime-spatial-planning.test.ec.europa.eu/msp-practice/countries</footnote>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Mecklenburg Vorpommern</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>Marine Spatial Plan for the territorial sea North Sea - Lower Saxony</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://www.ml.niedersachsen.de/landesraumordnungsprogramm/landes-raumordnungsprogramm-niedersachsen-5062.html (consulté le 07/2022)</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>Marine Spatial Plan for the Baltic - EEZ</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://www.bsh.de/EN/TO-PICS/Offshore/MaritimeSpatial_planning/MaritimeSpatial_Plan_2021/Anlagen/Downloads/ROP_2021/MaritimeSpatial_Plan_2021.pdf;jsessionid=9748926EA6168E5946581B0FE1875E99.live11291?blob=publicationFile&amp;v=5</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>Marine Spatial Plan for the North Sea - EEZ</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.bsh.de/EN/TO-PICS/Offshore/MaritimeSpatial_planning/MaritimeSpatial_Plan_2021/Anlagen/Downloads/ROP_2021/MaritimeSpatial_Plan_2021.pdf;jsessionid=9748926EA6168E5946581B0FE1875E99.live11291?blob=publicationFile&amp;v=5</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>No information</td><td>No access</td><td>No information</td><td>No information</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>EEZ</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/a4a9a-national-marine-planning-framework/</td></tr><tr><td>Italia</td><td>No information</td><td>No access</td><td>No information</td><td>No information</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>EEZ</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.tpdris.lt/lt_LT/webUESTSARASAS</td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>The entire part of the Baltic Sea Baltic Sea under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Latvia up to the outer limit of the exclusive economic zone.</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mKigVjv6N03cjgPkwR5RSItcQezsn5zY/view</td></tr><tr><td>Malta</td><td>Maltese marine waters up to the 25 nautical miles of the conservation area fisheries management</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.pa.org.mt/en/strategic-plan-details/strategic%20plan%20for%20the%20environment%20and%20development</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>EEZ</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.government.nl/documents/policy-notes/2015/12/15/policy-document-on-the-north-sea-2016-2021</td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td>EEZ</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://polishmsp.eu/</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>EEZ</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://www.psoem.pt</td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>EEZ</td><td>In progress</td><td>No information</td><td>No information</td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>EEZ</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://dokumentipis.mop.gov.sijavno/veljavni/PPP2192/1/English/MSP_Slovenia.pdf</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>EEZ</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://www.miteco.gob.es/content/dam/miteco/es/costas/participacion-publica/resumenejecutivo-poem_tcm30-529000.pdf</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>Gulf of Bothnia; North Bothnia; North Kvarken; South Bothnia Bothnia</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://www.havochvatten.se/</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>Northern Baltic Sea and south of Kvarken; Central Baltic Sea; South-east Baltic Sea; Southern Baltic Sea; South-west Baltic Sea and the Sound</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://www.havochvatten.se/</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>North Pacific and South Pacific</td><td>Plan</td><td>No</td><td>https://www.havochvatten.se/</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>East England</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://assets.publishing.ser vice.gov.uk/govern ment/uploads/system/uploads/at tachment_data/file/312496/east plan.pdf</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>South England</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://assets.publishing.ser vice.gov.uk/govern ment/uploads/system/uploads/at tachment_data/file/726867/South Ma rine_Plan_2018.pdf</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Northern Ireland</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/ar ticles/marine-plan-northern-ire land</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Scotland</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.gov.scot/publica tions/scotlands-national-marine plan-9781784128555/</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Wales</td><td>Plan</td><td>Yes</td><td>https://www.gov.wales/sites/de faultrfiles/publications/2019- 11/welsh-national-marine-plan document_0.pdf</td></tr></table>

## B ANNEX 2

Analysis 19 MSP initiatives

<table><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>Plan area</th><th>I1</th><th>I2</th><th>I3</th><th>I4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>EEZ</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Bulgaria</td><td>EEZ</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>EEZ</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>EEZ</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>South Atlantic</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>North Atlantic - Western English Channel</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>Easter English Channel - North Sea</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>Mediterranean sea</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>Baltic sea</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>North Sea</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>EEZ</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td>EEZ</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Malta</td><td>EEZ</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>ZEE</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>East England</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>South England</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Northern Ireland</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Scotland</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Wales</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>
C ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper is supported by a doctoral grant from Nantes University and the Pays de la Loire Region. JD and BT
contributed to the conception of the research; JD and BT provided insight and context to support interpretation of results;
JD led the writing of the paper, data collection, and analysis; all co-authors contributed to the preparation, editing and
refining of the paper. The co-authors would like to thank the reviewers for their help in improving the manuscript. JD
revised the manuscript. The final manuscript has been approved by all the authors.