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

HAL
open science

# Marine spatial planning initiatives off the coast of large coastal cities. An assessment in the Northwestern Mediterranean

Federico Fabbri, Sandrine Ruitton, Samuel Robert

► To cite this version:

Federico Fabbri, Sandrine Ruitton, Samuel Robert. Marine spatial planning initiatives off the coast of large coastal cities. An assessment in the Northwestern Mediterranean. Ocean and Coastal Management, 2025, 270, pp.107898. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.107898. hal-05250733v2

HAL Id: hal-05250733

https://hal.science/hal-05250733v2

Submitted on 9 Oct 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_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Marine spatial planning initiatives off the coast of large coastal cities. An assessment in the Northwestern Mediterranean

Federico Fabbri<sup>a,b,*</sup> <sup>Δ</sup>, Sandrine Ruitton<sup>b</sup> <sup>Δ</sup>, Samuel Robert<sup>a</sup> <sup>Δ</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

- Marine spatial planning

- Local scale

- Large coastal cities

- Mediterranean sea

## ABSTRACT

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is fundamental to the management of marine resources and space. Many countries have drawn up national marine spatial plans that, as with land spatial planning, need to be transposed and adapted at local level, particularly in areas of significant socio-economic interest. Major coastal cities and adjacent marine areas are critical places for local MSP. However, there has been little investigation of MSP implementation in these priority contexts. To narrow this gap, this study analyses how the local authorities of seven major coastal cities of the Northwestern Mediterranean, located in France, Italy and Spain, are including the sea in their planning strategies, and what they are doing in terms of MSP. Examining their public policies and spatial planning strategies sheds light on whether and how they are transposing MSP, and with what objectives. Results show that local implementation of MSP in these cities is highly heterogeneous, influenced both by national policies and local initiatives, and still rare. Among the seven cities, only Barcelona and Marseille stand out for their initiatives to plan and manage their marine area. This calls into question the impact of the European and national maritime policies enacted over the past decades to promote MSP.

## 1. Introduction

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) involves analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve specific ecological, economic and social objectives through a political process (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). As the sea is increasingly used by human societies, in terms of number and intensity of activities, conflicts among competing uses are on the increase, as are the pressures on marine ecosystems. In this context, MSP is widely recognized as a solution. Over the last two decades, it has been implemented in various geographical contexts throughout the world: Canada (Ricketts and Hildebrand, 2011); Mexico (Díaz-de-León & Díaz-Mondragón, 2013); China (Li et al., 2024), Norway (Platjouw, 2018; Zaucha et al., 2025), New-Zealand (Hauraki Gulf Forum, 2017) or South Africa (Ehler, 2021), to give a few examples. Currently, it is included in the national strategies of numerous countries (Frazão Santos et al., 2019), with some of them already engaged for years and having already updated their marine plans like Belgium (Ehler, 2021). Furthermore, it is gradually being transposed at lower geo-political levels through its incorporation into subnational policies (Ehler, 2021).

### 1.1. Integrated coastal and marine planning initiatives as groundwork for MSP

Combined consideration of the economic, ecological and social dimensions of both coastal and marine areas is among the main objectives of MSP (Kidd et al., 2020). However, before the recent breakthrough of MSP in territorial agendas, other integrated approaches to planning and managing marine spaces were initiated in coastal regions. These include management and planning frameworks like Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and land-use planning, which can facilitate MSP initiatives today.

The potential for MSP to benefit from previous ICZM initiatives has already been investigated, especially to effectively account for land-sea interactions and management issues within the 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea (Bocci et al., 2024; Ramieri et al., 2019). For instance, Ramieri et al. (2019) discuss the homologous nature of some ICZM and MSP phases, such as the development of a database and knowledge background, the elaboration of a common and long-term vision, the identification of strategic objectives and stakeholders' engagement. For the Mediterranean, they further highlight how MSP can incorporate the

<footnote><sup>a</sup> ESPACE, UMR 7300, CNRS, Aix Marseille Université, Avignon Université, Université Côte d'Azur, F-84000, Avignon, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Mediterranean Institute of Oceanography (MIO, UM 110, UMR 7294), Aix Marseille Université, Université de Toulon, CNRS, IRD, Marseille, 13288, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author. UMR 7300 ESPACE, CNRS, Aix-Marseille Université, Avignon Université, Université Côte d'Azur, Technopole de l'environnement Arbois Méditerranée Avenue Louis Philibert, BP 80 Bâtiment Laennec, hall C, Aix-en-Provence cedex 04, 13545, France.

E-mail address: federico.fabbri@univ-amu.fr (F. Fabbri).</footnote>
outcomes of previous ICZM experiences under the ICZM Protocol of the Barcelona Convention, adopted in 2008 (UNEP/MAP, 2019). The European MSP Directive (MSPD - European Commission, 2014), which requires Member States to develop MSP Plans by 2021, also recognises the appropriacy of relying on existing ICZM frameworks. In this regard, Article 7 of the MSP Directive explicitly recommends that Member States draw on past ICZM experiences to facilitate and streamline upcoming MSP processes.

Land planning initiatives in coastal territories may also provide insights into how MSP can be implemented. Analysing spatial planning tools and paradigms seeking to preserve natural areas and resources helps revealing a sustainable development approach or “business as usual” development policies (Prévost and Robert, 2016). In particular, prior to the advent of MSP, some land planning documents were addressing the spatial organisation of human activities at sea (Smith et al., 2011).

Other types of integrated approaches to managing coast and sea are also documented as complementary to MSP, particularly those developed under the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) of the European Union (European Council, 2007). IMP aims to enhance sustainable use of the sea to reach both socio-economic and environmental targets while preserving the health of ocean ecosystems (Frazão Santos et al., 2012; Friess and Grémaud-Colombier, 2021; Gilbert et al., 2015; Langlet and Westholm, 2021; Schaefer and Barale, 2011; Serpetti et al., 2021).

## 1.2. Coastal cities as hotspots for MSP

The current global emergence of MSP plans raises a need to study and evaluate the way in which they are designed, particularly at regional and local level, where planning policies are put into practice. Indeed, MSP objectives can only be truly achieved when they are translated at the local level, taking into account the specific natural and anthropogenic dynamics of the planned area (Olsen et al., 2011). The local perspective also enables the necessary consideration of local stakeholders' interests and perspectives, which may differ significantly from those of national or international actors (Kerr et al., 2014; Westholm, 2018; Yet et al., 2022). In addition, more in-depth and structured interactions with local communities and stakeholders strengthen cooperation, increasing the overall acceptability and effectiveness of the planning process (Ansong et al., 2017; Tissière and Trouillet, 2022). This is especially important in areas where maritime activities are intense and where MSP benefits can be expected, such as the waters next to large coastal cities. On the one hand, the size and particular features of large cities produce significant and diverse pressures on their marine environment, on which they depend both socially and economically (Barragán and de Andrés, 2015; Innocenti and Musco, 2023; Ye et al., 2015). Their high concentrations of population, industries and port facilities amplify their footprint on marine ecosystems (Sekovski et al., 2012; Todd et al., 2019). Their geographical positioning often makes them focal points for maritime transport, international trade and tourism, further complicating the management of nearby marine spaces. On the other hand, their institutions can provide substantial support for effective implementation of MSP, usually having both extensive engineering and research facilities and extensive funding capacity compared to other coastal territories (Reckien et al., 2018). Furthermore, the capacity of these cities to innovate and adopt cutting-edge technologies positions them as key to the development of adaptive and resilient ocean governance strategies (Zhang et al., 2024).

## 1.3. Assessing MSP implementation next to large coastal cities of the Northwestern Mediterranean

Since integrated management and planning approaches can support the emergence of MSP in coastal areas (Ramieri et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2011), analysing existing planning initiatives can help reveal how MSP initiatives may appear at local level (Kerr et al., 2014). Assessing the

history of a city, regarding local planning initiatives, can be highly informative (Mahadeo, 2022; McAteer et al., 2022; Westholm, 2018), for example, understanding the consideration for marine spaces, the conservation vs economy driven approaches, or if they include stakeholder perceptions into older initiatives (Greenhill et al., 2020; Smith, 2018). This type of assessment can reveal a range of factors: how and if MSP is being integrated into public policies (Smythe and McCann, 2019); the current expertise of territorial administrations in planning their marine space (Albotoush and Tan Shau-Hwai, 2021); the main drivers of a coastal territory's management of its maritime space (Saunders et al., 2019); the existence of competency groups involving the maritime community that could facilitate future attempts to involve stakeholders (Smith, 2018).

Large coastal cities are particularly interesting for such an assessment, especially in countries where MSP is on the political agenda. The Northwestern Mediterranean region, with rich natural resources and highly diverse seascapes, is characterized by a large variety of maritime activities in competition for sea space and resources (Coll et al., 2010; Depellegrin et al., 2024; Fabbri et al., 2024). Furthermore, the three main countries on the northern shore of the Western Mediterranean (Spain, France, Italy, from west to east) are members of the European Union and thus subject to the MSP Directive, which mandates MSP implementation. They have since transposed the directive into their national laws and developed their own national MSP plans (Zaucha et al., 2025); accordingly, it is reasonable to expect their major coastal cities to have engaged in MSP initiatives. Thus, considering this highly interesting context, and the presence of large coastal cities, we believe the Northwestern Mediterranean region is a relevant case study to assess the regional implementation of MSP.

The objective of this study is to assess the level of progress in implementing MSP off the coast of seven Northwestern Mediterranean cities, through a comparative analysis of the planning system of their respective country as well as their local planning policies and strategies related to sea and coast. Several other studies have already adopted an approach similar to ours, assessing and discussing how specific countries are developing MSP through their national legal frameworks and how these frameworks are applied across different spatial scales (e.g. Frazão Santos, 2016; Lagabrielle et al., 2018; Ramieri et al., 2024; Suárez de Vivero and Rodríguez Mateos, 2012; Walsh et al., 2024). However, only a few have focused on how MSP is being implemented within specific marine regions, and we have not found any work comparing MSP implementation at the city level, which highlights the originality of our research. The criterion for selecting the cities is a population exceeding 500,000 inhabitants, which means that the cities targeted by our analysis are: Barcelona, Malaga and Valencia in Spain; Marseille in France; Genoa, Naples and Palermo in Italy. Our research aims to shed light on how far coastal territorial administrations have gone towards local transposition of MSP (i.e., implementing local MSP within the national framework). It also seeks to critically assess settings promoting MSP in the specific context of large coastal cities, where such policies need to address numerous social and environmental challenges.

# 2. Research design and methodology

## 2.1. Study area: seven large cities of the Northwestern Mediterranean

The Northwestern Mediterranean coastline and marine waters, mainly shared and governed by Spain, Italy and France (Fig. 1), provide a relevant setting to explore whether and how local MSP is being implemented off the coast of large cities. A range of coastal and maritime activities are developing intensively in the region. First, the Mediterranean basin is considered the world's foremost tourist destination, attracting about 30 % of global tourists (UNEP/MAP, 2017). Spain, France and Italy lead the region's tourism, their coastal zones being famous holiday destinations (European Commission, 2021; Piante and Ody, 2015). There, tourism continues to grow and is expected to
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Study area: large coastal cities of more than 500,000 inhabitants in the Northwestern Mediterranean region.</figcaption></figure>

increase steadily (Plan Bleu, 2022a). Second, the Northwestern Mediterranean is a hot spot for marine traffic. It comprises port terminals of primary importance, very active in goods and passenger transport (UNESCO-IOC, 2021). Many of the largest harbours are of ancient origin and gave birth to today's large coastal cities (Randone et al., 2019). Third, coastal urbanisation is significant in the region. It is continuously increasing, due to both the expansion of the tourism and real estate sectors and the associated demographic growth, making the region very attractive worldwide (Lagarias and Stratigea, 2023; Robert et al., 2019). Accordingly, there is strong competition for marine space and resources, leading to conflicts of use and significant pressure on ecosystems (UNESCO-IOC, 2021).

In addition to urban and tourism impact on coastal waters, other sea-related activities make investigating local MSP implementation relevant. For instance, fishing, predominantly via small-scale fisheries, remains key from a socio-economic point of view, though it is threatened by the depletion of fish stocks and the subsequent decline in catches (FAO, 2023). Additionally, aquaculture, hydrocarbon extraction, military activities, extraction of marine aggregates (i.e., materials used for construction) and extraction of salt play a significant role in the regional economy (Campostrini et al., 2019; UNESCO-IOC, 2021). Finally, among activities expected to become more relevant in coming years are marine renewable energy (Plan Bleu, 2022b), desalination (March et al., 2014;

Stanhill et al., 2015), marine biotechnologies (Rotter et al., 2023), and deep-sea mining (Piante and Ody, 2015).

The Northwestern Mediterranean also provides an interesting target area because of its many large coastal cities, potential centres of innovation for local MSP implementation. In particular, highly populated cities with a range of infrastructure, economic activities, political authority, universities and other special features offer a setting for implementing original and ambitious local policies. In this perspective, we focused our study on coastal municipalities with more than 500,000 inhabitants, the largest Northwestern Mediterranean coastal cities. These seven cities are, from west to east: Malaga, Valencia and Barcelona in Spain; Marseille in France; Genoa, Naples and Palermo in Italy (Fig. 1).

These cities are large enough to be able to define strategies and regulations in various public policy fields. All studied cities are the capital cities of their respective political and administrative regions, except for Malaga. They are also governed by metropolitan authorities whose powers can be wide-reaching in terms of spatial planning and environmental management. Their spatial extension has given them rather long coastlines involving a set of maritime activities representative of the overall Northwestern Mediterranean (Table 1). All these cities include a port playing an important role in marine traffic in the region. Consistent port activities in terms of both goods and passenger transport

<table><caption>**Table 1**

General information on the cities assessed.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Inhabitants</th><th colspan="2">Length of coastline <sup>11</sup></th><th colspan="2">Port activity (2019)</th><th colspan="2">Fishing <sup>15</sup></th><th rowspan="2">MPA area <sup>16</sup><br>Total area<br>in km2</th></tr><tr><th>Metropolitan city<br>(1000 inhabitants)</th><th>Municipality (1000<br>inhabitants)</th><th>Metropolitan<br>area (km)</th><th>Municipality<br>(km)</th><th>Goods<br>(1000 tons)</th><th>Passengers (all<br>types x1,000)</th><th>First sales of fish<br>(net weight in tons)</th><th>Total sales of fish<br>(net weight in tons)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Malaga</td><td>852 <sup>1</sup></td><td>587 <sup>8</sup></td><td>42</td><td>20</td><td>3482 <sup>12</sup></td><td>1055 <sup>12</sup></td><td>260</td><td>677</td></tr><tr><td>Valencia</td><td>1409 <sup>2</sup></td><td>804 <sup>8</sup></td><td>43</td><td>28</td><td>80,728 <sup>12</sup></td><td>1113 <sup>12</sup></td><td>341</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>Barcelona</td><td>3292 <sup>3</sup></td><td>1656 <sup>8</sup></td><td>50</td><td>21</td><td>65,937 <sup>12</sup></td><td>4629 <sup>12</sup></td><td>3201</td><td>651</td></tr><tr><td>Marseille</td><td>1903 <sup>4</sup></td><td>870 <sup>9</sup></td><td>163</td><td>57</td><td>78,886 <sup>13</sup></td><td>3133 <sup>13</sup></td><td>445</td><td>1606</td></tr><tr><td>Genova</td><td>854 <sup>5</sup></td><td>585 <sup>10</sup></td><td>101</td><td>36</td><td>52,759 <sup>14</sup></td><td>3518 <sup>14</sup></td><td>587</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Naples</td><td>2816 <sup>6 7</sup></td><td>1005 <sup>6 7</sup></td><td>171</td><td>25</td><td>18,550 <sup>14</sup></td><td>8208 <sup>14</sup></td><td>1187</td><td>214</td></tr><tr><td>Palermo</td><td>1199 <sup>6 7</sup></td><td>635 <sup>6 7</sup></td><td>159</td><td>29</td><td>7414 <sup>14</sup></td><td>1955 <sup>14</sup></td><td>118</td><td>183</td></tr></tbody></table>

MPA: Marine Protected Area.

1, 2, 3 ...: Data sources provided in Appendix I.
are found in Marseille, Genoa and Barcelona; mainly passenger transport in Naples, mainly goods transport in Valencia, and generally less intense activity in Malaga and Palermo (Table 1). Fishing is part of the rooted maritime tradition, still playing a major socio-economic role. This is particularly true in Barcelona and Naples, the two cities with the biggest fish markets (Table 1), supplied by the intense fishing activity of local fleets connected to the surrounding ports. Finally, the maritime space off the coast of the seven cities (up to the 12 nautical miles limit) is included to varying extents within MPAs established to protect the most valuable marine ecosystems (see Appendix 1 for further details on how the area under MPA regime off the coast of each city was assessed). Far ahead, Marseille has the largest area of maritime space managed under an MPA regime, the only city where it exceeds 1000 km² (Table 1). But a considerable amount of marine space is also managed under MPA regimes in Malaga, Barcelona, Naples and Palermo, while in Genoa and Valencia the managed space is significantly smaller (i.e., <100 km²).

## 2.2. Methodological framework

Our methodology is grounded in comparative public policy analysis, which examines how and why policies differ across systems and institutions (Gupta, 2012; Wong, 2016). It also draws on the geographical approach to spatial planning policies, evaluating spatial and temporal scales, various administrative and political levels, as well as the territorial trajectories and unique characteristics of the places under examination (Ehrlich and Overman, 2020; Prévost and Robert, 2016; Robert and Schleyer-Lindenmann, 2021). Highlighting both the specific and the general of coastal and marine planning in the seven cities, the comparative method enables an analysis that reveals the approaches and decisions of local authorities. Our analysis focuses on whether and how they are incorporating MSP into their policies and creating the conditions necessary for its local implementation.

We proceed in four main phases (Fig. 2): A) a review of the spatial planning framework for each city, B) inventory and collection of local spatial planning tools, focusing on each city’s public policies and related documents concerning the planning of marine space, C) characterisation

and classification of the planning initiatives through the screening of the collected documents and D) a comparison of the cities’ planning trajectories and their drivers. Details on each phase are provided below.

### 2.2.1. Review of spatial planning frameworks

In Phase A (Fig. 2), we reviewed the current legal frameworks concerning spatial planning and integrated sea and coastal management in the three countries. It is an essential step in determining how (i.e., through which available planning tools and policies) MSP can be established in the seven cities studied, which depends on the prevailing legal framework.

First, a comprehensive review of current EU MSP Directive implementation through national plans was performed. Next, each national legislation was explored to shed light on the legal and planning frameworks for coastal management. Finally, the spatial planning systems of the three countries were examined, identifying and evaluating the specific spatial planning tools relevant to coastal areas, with a focus on their applicability to marine spaces.

The aim of this phase was to gain insights into how far MSP is actually integrated into the existing spatial planning frameworks of the three countries, and how it may be impacting the specific territorial policies of their major coastal cities.

### 2.2.2. Local spatial planning tool inventory and collection

The second phase (Fig. 2, B) consisted in gathering information on each city’s public policies and related documents in force over time. The objective was to identify any established planning initiative encompassing the marine space off the coast from the year 2000 on. Starting from 2000 is consistent with MSP’s recent history, theorisation and implementation worldwide, which mainly covers the last 20 years (Frazão Santos et al., 2019). It is also consistent with the establishment of major European maritime policies that have encouraged coastal management and sea planning in the study area, such as the ICZM recommendation issued in 2002, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008), and the MSP Directive (2014). We focused on planning initiatives not confined to the development of a single economic activity

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Methodological framework followed in the present study.</figcaption></figure>
or sector, but rather designed to integrate multiple uses of coastal and maritime spaces. This aligns with the objective of the search: to identify initiatives that can be regarded as complementary to, precursors of, or embodiments of an MSP approach.

An online search to identify these initiatives and related documents (Fig. 2, B, step 1) was conducted from publicly available sources concerning the thematic fields of spatial planning and environmental management, including planning and management of coastal and marine areas. We selected and collected information only on those planning initiatives aimed at the definition of integrated, i.e. non-sectoral, approaches. These initiatives are categorised in three types.

- Regulatory plans (planning tools with regulatory effect, whose implementation is legally mandated);

- Contractual tools (planning tools designed and implemented by institutions, associated and committed through a formal agreement, a contract);

- Strategies/guidelines (strategic tools, guidelines, or recommendations adopted by local territorial institutions, not legally binding).

The online research was carried out through three searches.

a) Search on the official EU repository of MSP initiatives developed by EU member states (The European MSP Platform). We used the MSP Platform “Practices database” (Best practice and scientific publications | The European Maritime Spatial Planning Platform, 2024), applying the following filters to the research: “country = France OR Spain OR Italy”; “type of practice = plan OR pilot plan”; “sea basin = west Mediterranean”;

b) Search on Google search engine with keywords in each city's main language (i.e. Spanish, Catalan, French, Italian). We entered the name of the territorial unit (i.e. Region, Province, metropolitan area, municipality; see Appendix II for further details) encompassing each city, together with “maritime spatial planning” as well as other terms potentially linked to MSP (see Appendix III for further details);

c) Search on the territorial institution's official website. For each territorial institution encompassing these cities (e.g. municipality, metropolitan area, region), we searched the official website for any thematic section related to spatial planning, environment, management of marine and coastal area.

To ensure the exhaustiveness of our investigation, we interviewed planning experts in some of the cities studied and exploited previous local public policy assessments (Fig. 2, B, step 2). For Malaga, Marseille, Genova, Naples and Palermo, we conducted a series of interviews, by phone or in person, with coastal and/or planning experts and representatives of local institutions (see Appendix IV for further details). We questioned them on past and ongoing planning initiatives encompassing the city's offshore marine space, and asked them to review the information collected through our search, pointing out any additional planning initiatives we might have missed. For Marseille, Valencia and Barcelona, we also relied on Cabioch (2023), a recent in-depth review of planning initiatives for the coastal areas of these three cities based on consultation of public sources and interviews with local planning authorities. For Naples, we also drew on Pistone (2023). This validation phase ensured that we were not overlooking certain existing plans that might be absent from online repositories and omitted in the sources consulted. Thus, our investigation can be considered to identify most of what exists in the cities studied. For each planning initiative identified, we downloaded all the available related supporting documents.

### 2.2.3. Characterisation of planning initiatives

In the third phase (Fig. 2 C), the initiatives and their related documents were listed and described in a table aimed at facilitating further

<table><caption>**Table 2**

Data table structure and main information extracted from planning documents.</caption><thead><tr><th>Main field</th><th>Title</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Code</td><td>Code of the planning initiative</td><td>A unique code attributed to each planning initiative composed of the first three letters of the corresponding city and a two-digit number</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Background information</td><td>Name of the planning initiative</td><td>Official name of the planning initiative</td></tr><tr><td>Related planning initiatives</td><td>Other planning initiatives listed in the database that are mentioned and related to the planning initiative concerned</td></tr><tr><td>Type and number of documents assessed</td><td>Format and number of documents collected and assessed for each initiative (pdf, web page, etc.)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Reference source documents</td><td>List of reference documents identified, downloaded and consulted</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Temporality</td><td>Publication date of the reference source documents</td><td>Year of publication of the reference documents describing the content of the initiative</td></tr><tr><td>Effective date of the planning initiative</td><td>Official date from which the initiative is applied/in force</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Planning objectives</td><td>Target date for the implementation of the planning initiative</td><td>Deadline for the implementation of the planning initiative and related measures</td></tr><tr><td>Planning domain</td><td>Main domain of the planning initiative: MSP, land planning, ICZM, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Main objective of the initiative</td><td>A summarised description of the general objective of the planning initiative as presented in the introductory part of the reference documents</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Main objectives concerning marine space</td><td>A summarised description of the main objectives related to the marine space</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Geographic framework</td><td>Territory of application of the approach</td><td>Name of the territorial unit in which the planning initiative applies</td></tr><tr><td>Administrative level:<br/>- n1. NUTS2 (Region)<sup>a</sup><br/>- n2. NUTS3 (Metropolitan area/ province/département)<br/>- n3. LAU (Municipality)</td><td>Administrative level of the territorial unit at which the planning initiative is developed, based on Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) of the European Union.</td></tr><tr><td>Legal force</td><td>Description of the legal force ascribed to the planning initiative through public policies; in original language</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Institutions engaged in the initiative</td><td>Legal force of the planning initiative (if applicable)</td><td>Classification of the planning initiative based on its legal force</td></tr><tr><td>Planning initiative categories:<br/>- O1. Regulatory plan;<br/>- O2. Contractual tool;<br/>- O3. Strategy/Guidelines;</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Responsible Institution</td><td>Main promoter and coordinator of the initiative.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Partner institutions</td><td>Institutions that collaborated in coordinating the initiative alongside the promoting institution.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Field of expertise of the project main promoter and coordinator</td><td>Disciplinary field of the working groups leading the initiative.</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>**Table 2 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Main field</th><th>Title</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Interaction with stakeholders</td><td>Categories of stakeholders involved and their role</td><td>Macro-categories of stakeholders involved (State, Local authority, Research, Association, Private sector) and their respective roles</td></tr><tr><td>Maritime sectors involved</td><td>Maritime sectors represented in the stakeholder involvement phase</td></tr><tr><td>Stakeholder interaction proceedings</td><td>Main phases and means of exchange with stakeholders (number of meetings, workshops and other activities involving maritime stakeholders)</td></tr><tr><td>Type of interaction with stakeholders</td><td>Types of stakeholder interaction:<ul><li>Communication,</li><li>Information,</li><li>Consultation,</li><li>Dialogue,</li><li>Participation,</li><li>Negotiation;</li></ul>Based on (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Drivers of marine management</td><td>Existing maritime uses assessed</td><td>Maritime activities mentioned in the assessment section; major categories of maritime activities adapted from the EU blue economy report 2019 (European Commission, 2023)</td></tr><tr><td>Promoted maritime uses</td><td>Maritime activities mentioned in the strategic section; major categories of maritime activities adapted from the EU blue economy report 2019 (European Commission, 2023)</td></tr><tr><td>Pressures on the marine environment</td><td>Pressures on the marine environment mentioned as major concern in the assessment section and/or target for mitigation measures in the strategic section; major categories of maritime pressures adapted from WISE Marine Information System for Europe's marine environment (European Environment Agency, 2024).</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">MSP acknowledgement</td><td>Levels of acknowledgement of MSP:<ul><li>a) not cited</li><li>b) cited</li><li>c) orientations</li><li>d) includes an MSP approach</li></ul></td><td>Level at which MSP has been acknowledged, i.e.:</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">MSP integration</td><td><ul><li>- Not cited: no terminology related to MSP practice is identified in the reference documents.</li><li>- Cited: MSP is mentioned in the text of reference documents, but no reasoning related to its implementation is mentioned.</li><li>- Orientations: the planning initiative provides guidance for implementing MSP for the territory but does not cover implementation of any MSP approach.</li><li>- Includes an MSP approach: the planning initiative involves and describes the implementation of an MSP approach for the territory.</li></ul>Summarised description of how MSP is integrated and</td></tr><tr><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 2 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Main field</th><th>Title</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Terminology adopted to refer to MSP</td><td>promoted through the planning initiative. Expression used to refer to MSP in the respective language of the reference source documents.</td></tr></tbody></table>

ª Eurostat, 2024. Regions in the European Union Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS). 2024 Edition. Publications Office of the European Union. 155 p. doi:10.2785/714519.

analysis. The main goal of the study being to characterise the spatial planning trends and trajectories reflecting the emergence of MSP in the seven cities, the framing of this table was made to allow an analysis of the documents following different search lines.

Our goal was to understand how existing planning initiatives incorporate the marine space so as to bring to light any actual proposals for MSP and explore their history and objectives. Accordingly, the planning initiatives were analysed through reviewing the contents of the related documents. An initial review was conducted by searching for key words (see Appendix III for further details) to check whether MSP is mentioned and with what objectives. Subsequently, documents were screened for a more thorough investigation of their contents, focusing on specific topics, namely temporality of planning implementation, planning objectives, geographic framework of implementation, legal force, coordinators of the plan, interaction with stakeholders, drivers of marine management, MSP acknowledgement (Table 2). The legal force of a document depends on its category. Although there is no conventional classification, three main categories can be distinguished: regulatory documents, which are enforceable against offenders; contractual documents, which are binding on the signatory parties; and strategies or guidelines documents, which provide guidance but are not enforceable. All the information on the planning initiative's main features was compiled in an exhaustive data table (Table 2; see Appendix V for the classification of the collected documents).

### 2.2.4. Inter-city comparison of planning trajectories and drivers

In the last phase (Fig. 2, D), the information gathered in Table 2 was analysed to reveal how the seven cities have chosen to manage and plan the maritime space off their coast over the last two decades. This involved two stages.

First, planning initiatives were positioned on a graphic timeline, based on the year of their implementation, to detect any spatial planning trajectory concerning the sea and the coast for each city. This approach allows visual representation (Fig. 3) of the chronological succession of planning initiatives aimed at managing the marine space (categorised by type, legal force, hierarchical relationship, scale and political level of applicability). It also shows whether and when MSP is incorporated into local policies. Particular attention is given to the year of MSP Directive approval (2014), revealing whether the directive has catalysed local transposal of MSP. On the timeline, each initiative is represented by a rectangular box featuring the code of the planning initiative (a unique code composed of the first three letters of the city name followed by a number). In instances where an initiative has an updated cycle, this is denoted by a lowercase letter. Box colours differ according to type of initiative, indicating different levels of MSP acknowledgement, and distinct outlines represent varying levels of legal force. The timeline also uses arrows showing when one initiative is listed in official documents as consequential to another (Fig. 3).

Key EU policies concerning the management of coastal and marine environments are also included in the timeline. These are represented by a specific line, with notations for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (European Council, 2000), ICZM Recommendation (European Council,
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Timeline structure presenting the approach used to visualise and compare planning initiatives implementation or updates in time. Includes information about the seven studied cities.</figcaption></figure>

2002), the MSF Directive (European Council, 2008) and the MSP Directive (European Commission, 2014). The adoption year of the MSP Directive is marked by a red dotted line to highlight its role as a milestone for MSP advent in Europe. Additionally, significant events in the

transposition of the MSP Directive into national laws and the definition of territorial entities (i.e., expansion of metropolitan areas) are indicated. Timelines are constructed in an identical manner for all seven cities, with the exception of Marseille, where the NUTS3 level does not

Table 3

Main planning tools available to territorial authorities of coastal cities in Spain, France and Italy.

<table><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>Administrative and political level</th><th>Name</th><th>Year of enactment</th><th>Characteristics</th><th>Applicable at sea</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Spain</td><td>Regional</td><td>Planes de Protección del Litoral</td><td>1988</td><td>Plan for protection of coastal areas from overdevelopment and environmental degradation.</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Regional</td><td>Planes de Ordenación del Territorio (POT)</td><td>1992</td><td>Plan regulating land use, including coastal areas.</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Regional</td><td>Estrategia de Adaptación al Cambio Climático</td><td>2006</td><td>Climate change adaptation strategy. It enhances coastal resilience, supports marine resource management, and addresses pollution.</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Municipal</td><td>Planes Generales de Ordenación Urbana (PGOU)</td><td>1995</td><td>Plan regulating land use and development, including specific provisions for coastal zones.</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Municipal</td><td>Plan de Acción de Clima y Energía Sostenible (PACES)</td><td>2015</td><td>Strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. It enhances coastal resilience and sustainable marine energy development.</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">France</td><td>Regional</td><td>Schéma Régional d'Aménagement et de Développement Durable des Territoires (SRADDET)</td><td>2015</td><td>Sustainable development strategy, including the coast and the sea.</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-municipal</td><td>Schéma Directeur d'Aménagement et de Gestion des Eaux (SDAGE)</td><td>1992</td><td>Water management plan, including coastal waters.</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-municipal</td><td>Contrat de Baie</td><td>1995</td><td>A contract between local institutions to manage coastal waters in specific bay areas.</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-municipal</td><td>Schéma de Cohérence Territoriale (SCoT)</td><td>2000</td><td>Coordination strategy for land use and development, including the coast. It may address marine space through a specific maritime section.</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-municipal</td><td>Plan Climat-Air-Énergie Territorial (PCAET)</td><td>2010</td><td>Strategic plan to address air-energy-climate issues. It tackles climate impact at sea and development of marine energy resources.</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Italy</td><td>Municipal</td><td>Plan Local d'Urbanisme (PLU)</td><td>2000</td><td>Urban plan regulating land use. It can be applied to coastal areas.</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Regional</td><td>Piano Paesaggistico Regionale (PPR)</td><td>1985</td><td>Landscape plan preserving cultural and natural landscapes, including coastal areas.</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Regional</td><td>Piano di Utilizzo delle Aree Demaniali (PUAD)</td><td>1998</td><td>Plan to regulate coastal areas, addressing issues related to land use, access to coastal zones and the protection of natural habitats</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Regional</td><td>Strategia regionale di adattamento climatico (SRAC)</td><td>2015</td><td>Strategy to support climate resilience. It tackles adaptation, pollution reduction, sustainable resource use and renewable energies in coastal and marine areas.</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-municipal</td><td>Piano Territoriale Metropolitano (PTM)</td><td>2000</td><td>Development plan ensuring sustainable land use, including coastal areas. It replaces the former Piano Territoriale di Coordinamento Provinciale (PTCP)</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Municipal</td><td>Piano Urbanistico di Disciplina Municipale (PUDM)</td><td>2000</td><td>Urban plan that may include specific regulations for coastal development.</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Municipal</td><td>Piano d'Azione per l'Energia Sostenibile e il Clima (PAESC)</td><td>2008</td><td>Strategic plan to boost energy efficiency and cut greenhouse gases. It supports coastal adaptation, marine renewable energy and pollution reduction at sea.</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>
align with the metropolitan area. Consequently, the Marseille timeline shows four distinct political and administrative levels (Region-NUTS2, Département-NUTS3, Metropolitan area, Municipality-LAU), while there are three in the others (Region-NUTS2, Metropolitan area/Province-NUTS3, Municipality-LAU).

Second, we compared the seven cities on the basis of the contents and modalities of their planning initiatives: fostered uses of the sea, pressures recognized as issues, management authorities responsible for planning and approaches to stakeholder involvement. On the uses promoted, we focused our search on the strategic sections of the planning initiatives, whereas for pressures identified as issues, we reviewed the documents in full. Then we assessed the relative importance of each use and pressure by creating a simple indicator calculated by dividing the number of initiatives mentioning a specific use/pressure by the total amount of use/pressures mentioned in all city's initiatives. A use mentioned in one initiative has a value of 1, in two initiatives a value of 2, and so on. The relative weight of this use is calculated by dividing its value by the cumulative value of all uses in that city. For instance, fishing is cited in 1 initiative in Naples and the total value of all uses across all documents is 8, making the relative importance of fishing 1/8, equivalent to 12.5 %. This method facilitates cross-city comparisons, revealing which uses and pressures prevail within the planning strategies. We then listed which working groups coordinated the planning initiatives, providing useful insights into the distribution of responsibility for managing marine space. This illustrates how territorial institutions are organising themselves to implement their strategies for the sea and the coast. Furthermore, examining how and which stakeholders are involved sheds light on the approaches adopted in this crucial aspect of the planning process.

## 3. Results

Our main findings are presented in three sections. First, we review the spatial planning frameworks relevant to coastal and marine planning in force in the three countries of the study area. Next, we outline the implemented planning initiatives encompassing marine space in the seven cities (i.e., cities' trajectories of spatial planning and local approaches to MSP). Then, we focus on the main drivers of marine planning and the objectives of the local MSP plans (i.e., identifying maritime sectors promoted and marine environmental pressures addressed in plans).

### 3.1. A regulatory framework that unevenly promotes local MSP initiatives

Table 3 presents the list of planning tools included in the regulatory spatial planning framework of the cities under study.

The planning systems of these three countries have established various planning tools applicable to coastal territories at the regional, intermunicipal and municipal levels (see Table 3). However, differences between the three planning systems can be observed and may influence the emergence of local initiatives within national policies.

In both Italy and Spain, spatial planning follows a decentralised structure, with regions holding primary authority and municipalities responsible for implementing urban plans. Moreover, intermunicipal planning initiatives are coordinated by provinces and metropolitan cities in Italy, and by provinces in Spain. Contrastingly, France operates a multi-tiered system where the State sets national guidelines, regions draft regional plans and municipalities implement local plans, supported by intermunicipal bodies (which include metropolitan cities) that have increasingly coordinated territorial policies in recent years (see Appendix VI for detailed information).

Stronger differences between the three countries arise regarding coastal area planning and management. In Spain and France, coastal management has been regulated for decades through specific national laws: the Loi Littoral in France, passed in 1986, and the Ley de Costas in Spain, enacted in 1988. These laws address several aspects of coastal

area development and regulate its artificialisation. No such law exists in Italy, however, the Italian coastline being governed by a broader legal framework that does not specifically address coastal areas. While this includes, among others, the Environmental Code (Codice dell'Ambiente, D.Lgs. 152/2006) and the Urban Planning Law (Legge Urbanistica, L. 1150/1942) applying to coastal areas, these instruments do not specifically provide for their protection or sustainable management. However, Italian coastal management projects are coordinated under regional initiatives (Cantasano et al., 2017).

Despite such differences regarding coastal planning and management, France, Italy and Spain are subject to the same EU common policies on the marine environment and its management. Among these policies, the MSP Directive of 2014 has been transposed into national legislation in all three countries (Table 3). In France and Spain, MSP plans have been integrated into national marine strategies, guiding the implementation of various European directives and regulations (Stratégie Nationale pour la Mer et le Littoral, France, 2019; Estrategias Marinas, Spain, 2021). In contrast, Italy's maritime policies have not been consolidated into a single overarching strategy, and the national MSP plan was only formalised in September 2024, three years after the mandatory deadline set by the MSP Directive.

To summarise, the spatial planning frameworks of the three countries offer uneven settings for the emergence of local MSP. France stands out, with several tools that directly address marine issues, albeit to varying extents. Notably, the SDAGE and the Contrat de Baie play a key role in managing coastal water quality, while the SRADDET at the regional level and the SCOT at the intermunicipal level provide frameworks for planning actions targeting the sea (see Table 3 for the definition and level of application of these tools). In particular, the SCOT with its maritime section strongly promotes planning the coastal sea as per the MSP Directive. Such tools give France the edge over other countries in the region in terms of a planning system suited to local transposition of MSP.

### 3.2. Number and trajectories of planning initiatives encompassing marine space

In all seven cities, planning initiatives encompassing marine space have been developed over the last two decades (Fig. 4), to different extents and with different purposes (Fig. 5). Either they were designed for the transposition of European and national policies or they stem from regional or place-specific initiatives. Yet, planning efforts and approaches differ widely.

#### 3.2.1. Uneven number of sea-oriented initiatives and uneven involvement of political levels

Our data collection yielded a corpus of 87 documents (Appendix V), in PDF format (84) as well as web pages (3), corresponding to 56 regulatory plans, contractual tools, strategies and guidelines encompassing the marine space of the seven cities (Table 4). They include land (26), coast (14), sea (13) and river basin (3) integrated planning initiatives. In terms of number (Table 4), Marseille stands out, with the greatest number of initiatives (15). Barcelona ranks second (9 initiatives), followed by the other two Spanish cities: Malaga and Valencia (8 and 7 respectively). Italian cities rank behind (maximum 7 initiatives per city).

Looking at the political and administrative levels at which initiatives are promoted or developed (Fig. 4), it is interesting to note that they differ among the seven cities. In Naples, Palermo and Genoa, an almost equal number of initiatives are taken at regional and local levels. Regional initiatives prevail in Malaga and Valencia, while a more local political will (metropolitan or municipal) is apparent in Barcelona and Marseille. These two cities also stand out for having implemented a significantly higher number of strictly local initiatives: 6 and 11, respectively (Table 4).

Over the past two decades, the timelines show that the seven cities had different planning trajectories (Fig. 4). Looking at the chronology,
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Timeline of sea-related planning initiatives.</figcaption></figure>

links and hierarchical relationships between planning initiatives, various planning trajectories or rationales appear. A clear regional (i.e. NUTS2) momentum can be identified in Malaga and Valencia, where there are no municipal initiatives, while a more local political impetus prevails in Naples and Marseille, at metropolitan and municipal levels respectively. In Marseille, the link between documents is strong, more than in any other city, suggesting that the designers of planning initiatives took the existing ones into account, in an integrated approach. Initiatives in Genoa, Palermo and Barcelona are taken at all levels but the first, chronologically, come from the region, suggesting a top-down trajectory, i.e., a cascade effect of regional decisions over local policies. Finally, comparing the timelines reveals that Marseille, the city with the highest number of local initiatives, is also the city that has developed MSP plans at the most local level (i.e., département, NUTS3).

### 3.2.2. Few MSP plans defined since the adoption of the European MSP directive

True MSP initiatives are rare and all date from 2014 on. They are found in Marseille (3), Barcelona (2) and Malaga (1). It is notable that these cities also have the largest marine areas managed under an MPA regime (Table 1), which may not simply be a coincidence. In the four other cities, MSP is paid marginal or no attention within public policies, either merely cited (Naples) or completely ignored (Genoa, Palermo and Valencia) in the documents supporting initiatives framing territorial planning and management. These documents make absolutely no reference to any official term evoking MSP in present or future plans.

Comparing the MSP initiatives identified, we found that they are all implemented regionally (NUTS2) in Barcelona and Malaga, while some also take effect at a more local scale (i.e. NUTS3 level) in Marseille. In terms of their legal force, legally binding MSP initiatives can be found
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Importance of sea and coastal uses in the spatial planning documents for each city. The maps display six categories of uses of the sea and the coast. Circle size shows the percentage frequency of reference to each use in local policies, indicating its importance within the city's planning framework. Empty circles signify that the use is not addressed in the city's plans.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 4**
Number of sea-related planning initiatives by city and administrative level.</caption><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>City</th><th>Regional level (NUTS2)</th><th>Metropolitan/provincial/département level (NUTS3)</th><th>Municipal level (LAU)</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Spain</td><td>Malaga</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Valencia</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Barcelona</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>Marseille</td><td>4</td><td>9</td><td>2</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Italy</td><td>Genoa</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Naples</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Palermo</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Total</td><td>29</td><td>20</td><td>7</td><td>56</td></tr></tbody></table>

both in Marseille and Barcelona, whereas MSP exists only as a strategy with no legal force in Malaga. Moreover, the main objectives of these initiatives differ among the three cities.

In Marseille, MSP is addressed through three initiatives: 1) the regional plan for sustainable development (MAR4, SRADDET), whose only reference to MSP lies in inciting local institutions to engage in the transposition of the national MSP framework through existing planning tools (i.e. the SCoT at inter-municipal level, see Table 3 for further details); 2) the public maritime domain management strategy in Bouches-du-Rhône (MAR5, Stratégie de Gestion du Domaine Public Maritime des Bouches-du-Rhône); and 3) the river basin management plan (MAR6, SDAGE), both MAR5 and MAR6 initiatives employing MSP to address environmental issues. These initiatives are coordinated respectively by the planning department of the Region (Service de la planification régionale et territoriale) and two local representations of government
departments, DDTM (Direction départementale des territoires et de la mer) and DREAL (Direction régionale de l'environnement, de l'aménagement et du logement), which handle the management of maritime and coastal space at regional and subregional level. However, none of these organisations have specific expertise in implementing MSP.

In Barcelona, MSP is developed through a regional strategy (BAR2, *Estrategia March et al., 2014*), which is a framework for organising human activities to attain environmental, social and economic goals, and to harmonise and coordinate existing regulations through a regional MSP plan (BAR4, *Ordenacio de l'espai marítim de Catalunya*). Here, co-ordination is managed by a dedicated MSP working group, known as the “Grup de treball d'ordenació de l'espai marítim”, created within the regional government of Catalonia. This is unique among the territorial institutions of the various cities, the only case where a specific working group for MSP has been established.

In Malaga, MSP is under the responsibility of the regional aquaculture department in Andalucía (Junta de Andalucía - Servicio de Acuicultura). This authority aims to identify suitable areas for aquaculture in an integrated manner, considering existing uses, activities and potential environmental issues through a regional strategy (MAL4, *Estrategia Andaluza para el Desarrollo de la Acuicultura Marina*). However, whether this qualifies as a true MSP exercise is highly debatable due to its strong sectoral focus.

Finally, even though considered true MSP, the initiatives appear rather weak as regards stakeholder involvement. In the available documents, there is little information on how different categories of stakeholder were engaged in the process (e.g. stakeholder identification phase, number of meetings, sectors involved, etc.).

### 3.3. Drivers of marine planning

Although local-level implementation of MSP is rather weak, the seven cities' territorial policies include planning initiatives aimed at coordinating, to some degree, the use of marine space and resources. These initiatives are generally driven by two complementary forms of commitment to sustainable development: promoting sea uses to support socio-economic development and reducing major environmental pressures. However, a more in-depth examination of their strategic components reveals that the motivations for current and future implementation of local MSP are varied.

#### 3.3.1. Sea uses promoted in local strategies

In the strategic section of the documents analysed, the future of the marine coastal zone is dealt with through possible, recommended or

promoted uses in the area (Fig. 5).

While priorities may differ from one place to another, it appears that well-established uses like coastal tourism, fishing and sea shipping are considered key to future socio-economic development in all the cities (≥50 % for each city when pooled). However, other uses are also promoted (aquaculture, renewable energies, marine biotechnologies, salt-water extraction), suggesting that more up-to-date strategies for the sea are emerging. Though secondary, they may foreshadow the structuring of the blue economy in the region (UNESCO-IOC, 2021).

Aquaculture, although not prominent, is frequently promoted as a future use in Malaga, Valencia, Barcelona, Marseille, Genoa and Naples (Fig. 5). There is also a strong focus on marine biotechnologies in all five cities, as well as on renewable energies (in Barcelona, Marseille, Genoa, Naples and Palermo and, to a lesser extent, in Genoa). Extraction of marine water is promoted only in Malaga, which must be seen as a response to the growing demand for freshwater in Andalusia, an increasingly warmer and drier region of southern Spain (Espinosa-Tasón et al., 2022; Paneque et al., 2018). Finally, some current sea uses like cables/pipelines deployment, defence, extraction of marine aggregates, and oil and gas related activities are not mentioned within local plans.

To summarise, the seven cities form two groups (Fig. 5). One group, formed by Malaga, Valencia and Genoa, is more focused in investing in the development of well-established economic activities (sea shipping, fishing, tourism and aquaculture). The other group (Barcelona, Marseille, Naples and Palermo) has a pronounced interest in the blue economy sector, especially in biotechnology and renewable energy. Interestingly, while the first group is composed of cities where MSP initiatives are lacking or highly sectoral (i.e., Malaga's MSP focus on aquaculture), the second group includes the two cities where integrated MSP is being developed (Barcelona, Marseille).

#### 3.3.2. Concern over marine environmental pressures

Fig. 6 presents the marine pressures on the marine environment identified in the planning initiatives. Most of these pressures have origins on land (more than 50 % for each city when pooled). Pressures include water pollution from the watersheds, alteration of hydrographical conditions largely due to the construction of coastal infrastructure (e.g. docks and other port-related facilities), with marginal concern over marine litter. However secondary, some sea-based pressures are also considered, such as damage to sea floor habitats due to fishing activities, underwater noise and introduction of non-indigenous species, both caused by the high maritime traffic (Fig. 6). Additionally, pressures generated by climate change, ranging from sea level rise, water temperature increase and extreme events, are taken into account in all the cities.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Marine environmental pressures considered in all planning initiatives. Each bar represents the ratio of pressures (colours) identified in the initiatives of a specific city.</figcaption></figure>
Barcelona, Marseille and Naples refer to a wider variety of pressures (8,7, and 6), whereas fewer pressures are accounted for in Malaga, Valencia, Geno and Palermo (maximum 5 per city). This difference arises from the first group's inclusion of a greater number of sea-based pressures. Some interesting similarities and singularities among the cities emerge.

First, Barcelona and Marseille are very similar. Their spatial planning documents show the same concerns regarding water pollution, alteration of hydrographical conditions, marine litter, physical loss and disturbance of the seabed, introduction of non-indigenous species and slight concern over underwater noise and climate change. There is only one distinction between the two: unlike Marseille, Barcelona also takes harvesting of fishing resources into consideration.

Genoa and Palermo, in line with their strong focus on sea shipping, mainly consider related pressures such as alteration of hydrographical conditions and damages of the sea bottom. They also show similar concern over climate change, but differ in awareness of certain other pressures: Palermo mentions underwater noise, Genoa the harvesting of fishing resources.

In Malaga, water pollution is by far the main concern, followed by harvesting of fishing resources, damage to sea floor habitats, non-indigenous species and climate change.

In Valencia, few pressures are considered: water pollution, non-indigenous species and climate change. This suggests an overall lower interest in the sea, with limited integration of maritime uses and related pressures into planning strategies.

In Naples, the main concerns are harvesting of fishing resources and water pollution, followed by, in order of relevance, alteration of hydrographical conditions, marine litter and climate change, with slight concern over physical loss and disturbance of the seabed.

### 3.3.3. Main drivers of MSP initiatives

Insights into how MSP is being developed can be drawn from the contents of the existing MSP initiatives found in Marseille, Barcelona and Malaga, in particular concerning their main drivers. Focusing on the assessment report of these cities' MSP plans, we observe that very few marine economic sectors are taken into account: sea shipping and fishing in all three cities; tourism in Barcelona and Marseille; marine aquaculture in Malaga and Barcelona; and marine aggregate extraction in Malaga alone.

Malaga's MSP plan exhibits a strongly sectoral approach, focusing solely on marine aquaculture. The reason is that this plan was developed to specifically identify and assess the most suitable areas for aquaculture infrastructure, in addition to the existing ones. Unquestionably, this makes the Malaga plan a sectoral one, rather than a fully integrated MSP plan. Conversely, in Barcelona and Marseille, multiuse and the integration of most sectors is promoted. There is a commitment to both traditional and new uses, including transportation, fishing, aquaculture, renewable energies and biotechnology. Barcelona also fosters aquaculture, while in Marseille, tourism is by far the main sector of interest for future sustainable development of the sea.

Regarding the pressures considered, Malaga only addresses water pollution. Contrastingly, Barcelona and Marseille take several pressures into account: water pollution, alteration of hydrographical conditions, marine litter, physical loss and disturbance of the seabed, non-indigenous species. Additionally, Barcelona includes climate change and harvesting of fishing resources, while Marseille addresses underwater noise.

## 4. Discussion

This study comprehends an analysis of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) initiatives in seven cities of the Northwestern Mediterranean region. Overall, MSP has been poorly implemented and each city is in different stages of application. While there is no doubt that local MSP is largely location-dependent, some common features are discernible. Five

are discussed in this section.

### 4.1. Poor and heterogeneous transposition of the MSP directive into territorial policies

Although the MSP Directive dates back to 2014, only three out of the seven cities have introduced MSP into their territorial policies: Barcelona, Malaga and Marseille. Unsurprisingly, they are those with a greater number of coastal management and planning initiatives that consider the sea, suggesting that a stronger spatial planning and ICZM culture (see Introduction) can facilitate innovation. From an MSP project perspective, these cities may benefit from the prior experience of their institutions in terms of both planning and interactions with stakeholders, both of which are essential components for the effective design, coordination, and implementation of Marine Spatial Planning processes. However, these three cities have different MSP initiatives. Barcelona and Marseille are the only ones with actual MSP implementation, since Malaga's only initiative is largely sectoral. What distinguishes Barcelona and Marseille is a set of favourable conditions that support the development of MSP.

A first noteworthy point is that the existence of legally binding MSP plans in both cities confirms their greater commitment to promoting effective organisation of marine space. In both cities, moreover, the implementation of local initiatives is aligned with their respective national MSP plans and relies on planning and regulatory tools defined within their respective national frameworks. However, a closer look at the way these initiatives are implemented reveals that their approaches differ. Barcelona's MSP is initiated and developed by the regional government via an integrated approach that balances environmental, economic and social objectives, while Marseille's MSP is implemented at river basin and province (département, NUTS3) levels, prioritising environmental objectives. Barcelona's pioneering, legally binding and integrated MSP is unique in the Northwestern Mediterranean, relying on a dedicated working group with a proactive approach. In contrast, Marseille has used several planning tools that apply at sea (Fig. 4, Appendix V) and are part of the French planning framework (Table 3). Their implementation has been interconnected and driven by a clear local initiative, indicating the city's strong will to take maritime space into account. However, it could have been more ambitious (going beyond environmental issues), as the French spatial planning toolbox offers instruments specific to integrated local MSP implementation that the city has not employed so far. This applies particularly to the SCOT (Schéma de Cohérence Territoriale, see Table 3) and especially its maritime section which has the potential to regulate MSP in a coherent legally binging framework. While the regional strategic plan (SRADDET, MAR4 in Fig. 4) acknowledges the importance of the SCOT in regulating marine activities, its application seawards in Marseille is still pending, most likely due to a lack of political will. Another possible factor is that the metropolitan city, which is responsible for defining the SCOT, is still in the process of developing a first standard version which, unlike other territorial communities in the French Mediterranean (Trouillet et al., 2011), does not include a marine section. So far, the competent authorities have not announced any projects of the SCOT marine section which would be the main appropriate planning legal tool to frame MSP. The opposite situation prevails in Barcelona, where despite the lack of any specific MSP framework within the Spanish planning system, the city has effectively leveraged its regional and sectoral tools to ensure coherent and proactive MSP implementation.

Next, their two opposing situations merit attention: one city (Marseille) has at its disposal a highly suitable tool for applying MSP locally but does not use it, while the other (Barcelona) lacks such planning tools but still manages to implement an integrated MSP plan. Such contrast between the two cities highlights the importance of both political commitment and multi-level coordination in the successful application of MSP. It suggests that political will within territorial entities and institutions is vital to establishing MSP, as previously found by other
studies (Mahadeo, 2022; Olsen et al., 2014). This is further highlighted by the observation that even when a national MSP plan is effectively implemented, the development of local MSP still varies from city to city. Spain provides a good example: while the national MSP plan was established in line with the directive, Barcelona has developed numerous planning initiatives that regulate marine uses, including a legally binding MSP plan, whereas Valencia has developed fewer initiatives, none of which include MSP. In Italy, where there is no specific law for the coast and where the national MSP plan was implemented much later than in the two other countries, local initiatives are much scarcer, and MSP remains undeveloped. Clearly, a robust national framework is a prerequisite to support local MSP, even though its degree of development will depend on the political will of individual cities.

Previous studies have examined how different MSP frameworks can significantly shape the outcomes of countries' planning practices (Rivers et al., 2022; Westholm, 2018; Zaucha et al., 2025; Zaucha and Kreiner, 2021). In this research, while we found evidence of how differences in national planning frameworks influence the emergence of local MSP initiatives, we also observed cases where cities adopt MSP initiatives regardless of their respective national framework. For example, both Marseille and Barcelona are engaged in implementing MSP, despite operating under different spatial planning systems: centralised in France and decentralised in Spain.

## 4.2. Rather weak promotion of the blue economy

Our study provides original insights into the maritime uses considered as priorities for socio-economic development within local territorial plans. While the blue economy is widely promoted globally (Jouffray et al., 2020), these results clarify how seven major Northwestern Mediterranean cities approach the management and development of their maritime space. Even though MSP is expected to deal with a great diversity of maritime activities to foster multiuse and integration (Kidd et al., 2020), the documents analysed reflect a narrow focus, with only a limited range of sea uses assessed and promoted. This is surprising given the comprehensive scope typically associated with MSP.

We show that a small number of well-established maritime uses (coastal tourism, sea shipping, and fisheries) are central to the socio-economic development of the seven cities studied and are expected to retain this role in the future. This is consistent with these cities being attractive metropolises playing a key role in the local and national economy. They host large port infrastructures and work as logistic-intermodal nodes for goods and tourism (Cusano et al., 2017). Moreover, the relative weight of fisheries stems from their past socio-economic and cultural significance; this is still a fairly important commercial sector, albeit in decline (FAO, 2023). Nevertheless, while the listed uses are highly important, other uses have not been developed in the area. In view of issues such as ecological transition, renewable energy production and climate change adaptation, these large cities might have been expected to take more ambitious approaches to plan and use the sea off their coasts. For instance, cities like New York (United States) and Auckland (New Zealand) are actively engaged in regional marine plans for the sustainable development of their maritime spaces (Hauraki Gulf Forum, 2017; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2017).

The omission of certain maritime activities from city planning, such as cables and pipelines for instance, is likely due to their association with economic sectors typically managed at the national level, making them less subject to local strategic considerations. However, this approach risks creating a situation where these activities are developed in parallel with local plans, bypassing engagement with local communities and being imposed top-down, driven by dominant economic interests. This would result in a failure to adequately address the needs and concerns of local stakeholders, weakening the effectiveness of local MSP from a sustainable development perspective (Gilek et al., 2021; Guyot-Téphany et al., 2024).

It is not surprising that some well-established uses are prioritised in planning documents: the future envisaged in plans always partly reflects the existing situation. However, the relative absence of alternative uses, or the fact that they are scarcely mentioned, raises questions. Most of these cities propose the development of emerging green technologies, such as renewable energy and biotechnology, which aligns with the EU's blue economy strategy (European Commission, 2023). Our findings distinguish between cities that appear to strongly promote these emerging uses in their plans (Barcelona, Marseille, Naples and Palermo), and cities that seem to do so minimally or not at all (Malaga, Valencia and Genoa). However, these activities are not addressed by multi-sectoral, integrated MSP approaches, raising doubts about the capacity of the cities assessed to achieve a truly sustainable blue economy and an effective ecological transition. Barcelona stands out as the only city actively involved in a regional MSP plan explicitly designed to promote the sustainable development of both well-established and emerging activities within a multi-use framework.

These results suggest that there are substantial differences among cities in how the future use of maritime space is approached. Results also confirm that the willingness and capacity of local institutions varies greatly in terms of innovation towards a sustainable blue economy and, ultimately, the implementation of MSP.

## 4.3. Limited consideration of marine pressures

The marine pressures addressed in the planning documents testify to each city's concerns regarding the sea and the coastal zone. They reflect the degree to which these documents consider the pressures generated by the maritime activities deemed most important for economic development. Finally, they indicate whether the plans so far approved include an integrated vision of marine management, or whether there are gaps in their approach.

We observed a clear tendency to prioritise marine pressures originating from land-based activities in the plans adopted by the various cities. This is likely due to the fact that these plans primarily address land planning and coastal management (e.g., only 13 out of 50 initiatives focus primarily on maritime issues). Accordingly, the main pressure of concern by far is coastal water pollution from land-based sources. This may be due to the influence of the WFD, established well before other EU marine policies and directives. The WFD targets the achievement of good status for water bodies, including marine waters up to one nautical mile from the coastline, and its implementation and transposition into territorial policies began in 2000, eight years before the MSF Directive of 2008 and fourteen years before the MSP Directive of 2014.

While significant attention is paid to land-based pressures across the cities, there is a noticeable lack of capacity to address sea-based pressures. Although some are considered, it is largely in a marginal way: fishing, damage to seabed habitats, underwater noise and non-indigenous species. Yet they are typically among the dominant pressures in the Mediterranean region (Micheli et al., 2013) and are likely to be more intense in highly anthropised contexts, such as coastal areas of large cities (Todd et al., 2019).

The comparison between cities reveals that those tending to consider a narrower range of pressures, such as Valencia and Palermo, also address the fewest uses. This suggests a more limited capacity in these cities to move toward an integrated approach that encompasses the full spectrum of human activities and pressures on the marine environment, particularly those originating at sea. The same applies to the few examples of local MSP plans we identified in Marseille and Barcelona. While these plans address a diversified combination of uses and pressures, they lack the capacity to fully take into account the full range of pressures associated with the very uses they are planning for.

Finally, it is of high concern that the environmental pressures typically associated with dominant maritime activities in the economies of some cities are either overlooked or given only marginal consideration.
For instance, issues such as overfishing, underwater noise, and damage to seafloor habitats, mainly caused by fishing, maritime traffic, and coastal tourism, are rarely addressed in the cities' plans. This suggests either that these pressures are being ignored to protect certain commercial sectors without taking the necessary measures to mitigate their impacts, or a failure to fully understand the relationships between uses and the associated environmental pressures. Addressing these connections would be a crucial step towards achieving environmental sustainability and ecosystem-based management through integrated MSP (Andersen et al., 2023; Paramana et al., 2023).

## 4.4. The stakeholders' engagement process in question

This study highlights a general lack of transparency in the stakeholder engagement process within MSP initiatives. Details of which and how stakeholders are involved in the planning process is generally considered a fundamental component of reference MSP plans (Quesada-Silva et al., 2019; Retzlaff and LeBleu, 2018; Zaucha and Kreiner, 2021). The fact that this is not properly reported may indicate that, in practice, it is weak the public involvement in the primary phases of the planning process.

Lack of transparency in the stakeholder engagement process may conceal ineffective communication, listening and coordination with stakeholders and citizens, as already shown in Iceland by Wilke (2023). However, this can result from an attempt to avoid difficulties when exchanging with third parties, as frequently observed in processes where participation is required (Iotzov and Rossignol, 2018). It can significantly hinder any planning process, especially at the local level, where stakeholder engagement must be handled with the utmost care to ensure effective communication with sea users and communities (Kerr et al., 2014; Westholm, 2018; Yet et al., 2022). In large cities, where the diversity of uses and socio-economic challenges related to marine management are especially pronounced (Todd et al., 2019), transparency becomes even more critical.

Moreover, lack of information on the main steps and participants in the stakeholder engagement process makes it impossible to properly verify contents and modalities, which could impede external monitoring. Furthermore, key-factors to ensure social sustainability through MSP, such as representativeness and inclusiveness of different stakeholders' groups, cannot be assessed, as already underlined (Saunders et al., 2020). Yet, these are key aspects of the stakeholder engagement process for MSP, which is intended to take account of the needs of society as a whole (Iglesias-Campos et al., 2021). In particular, several studies have highlighted how inclusive involvement of the different compartments of society is fundamental to guaranteeing sustainability in MSP (Gilek et al., 2021; Saunders et al., 2019).

These findings underscore the need for territorial institutions to strengthen transparency in how they communicate the stakeholder involvement process.

## 4.5. MPAs as a catalyst for local MSP development?

Our results suggest that the greater a territory's expertise in the ecosystem management of marine space, the greater the aptitude of local institutions to plan the use and management of the sea and develop MSP. We observed that the cities where MPAs are large and extensively established are also those where spatial planning initiatives consider the sea and where MSP has developed. This is the case of Marseille, Malaga and Barcelona, by far the three cities with the largest area of marine space managed under an MPA regime, the most planning initiatives, as well as the only local place-based MSP. In contrast, the coastal zones of the cities promoting fewer uses also have smaller marine areas managed under an MPA regime. MPA implementation might therefore be an indicator of a territory's propensity, capacity and willingness to pursue

integrated planning and management of its maritime space, as already discussed by other authors (Agardy et al., 2011; Ehler, 2021; Jay et al., 2013; Trouillet and Jay, 2021). Although MPAs are principally aimed at nature conservation, while MSP additionally targets economic and social objectives, they can serve as a starting point for some key steps of MSP (e.g. identification of priority areas for conservation) (Vaughan and Agardy, 2020).

## 5. Conclusion

Maritime spatial planning is vital for sustainable managing marine spaces and ecosystems. This work provides an overview of how it is being addressed by large coastal cities in the Northwestern Mediterranean, a region covered by the European MSP Directive and where various sea-related challenges have to be met. Our results indicate that while sea uses are addressed in many spatial planning documents from all these cities, the implementation of integrated MSP at a local scale remains rare and its development highly uneven. This observation, a decade after the adoption of the MSP Directive, calls into question the extent of its impact on local public policies.

We found that place-based MSP is more likely to emerge at local scale when three key preconditions are met: 1) a national MSP framework has been transposed into public policies, 2) a tradition within territorial entities of planning initiatives that take coastal and marine spaces into account, 3) the commitment of local institutions to establish MSP for integrated sustainable management of marine uses and resources within their territories.

Looking at the drivers of planning initiatives developed seawards, we observed that long-established maritime sectors are promoted as crucial for economic development in all the cities. Yet, two distinct approaches can be identified: a more progressive one aimed at promoting emerging "green" and "blue" sectors, and a more conservative approach focused on the development of a few established uses. However, both largely neglect the environmental issues generated by the primary maritime uses they promote, and exhibit limited capacity to address sea-based pressures. Instead, they tend to focus on land-based pressures, reflecting their primary orientation towards coastal and terrestrial planning.

We also encountered significant challenges in understanding how stakeholders are involved in MSP initiatives, suggesting a need for greater transparency. Recommendations for MSP implementation highlight the importance of clear communication regarding this key planning aspect of MSP, particularly in large-city contexts where numerous sectors and groups of citizens need to be coordinated.

To a certain extent, this work is original in that it offers the first ever insight into MSP implementation at local scale in several major coastal cities, and provides a methodological framework for analysing public policies being developed in this field. Nevertheless, lots of questions remain for a better understanding of the current state of affairs regarding MSP off the coast of large coastal cities. For instance, research could explore how marine planning policies are impacting the organisation of marine uses. In this perspective, future investigations should interview local stakeholders to examine the effects of ongoing marine planning on their activities. This could shed further light on how MSP is being received and coordinated, as well as how it incorporates particular local features and stakeholders' priorities.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Federico Fabbri:** Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Sandrine Ruitton:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Samuel Robert:** Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
## Funding

This work was supported by Aix-Marseille University through the Inter Ecoles Doctorales funding program [2021]; Labex DRIHM (ANR-11-LABX-0010) funded by the French Government's Investissements d'Avenir Program, through OHM Littoral Méditerranéen. The funding sources had no involvement in the research design and decision to submit the article for publication.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.107898.

## Data availability

All data collected and used in this study are available in the supplementary material.

## References

Agardy, T., di Sciara, G.N., Christie, P., 2011. Mind the gap: addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Mar. Pol. 35, 226-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.006.

Albotoush, R., Tan Shau-Hwai, A., 2021. An authority for marine spatial planning (MSP): a systemic review. Ocean Coast Manag. 205, 105551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105551.

Andersen, J.H., Al-Hamdani, Z., Carstensen, J., Edelvang, K., Egekvist, J., Kaae, B.C., Hammer, K.J., Therese Harvey, E., Leth, J.O., McClintock, W., Murray, C., Olafsson, A.S., Olsen, J., Sveegaard, S., Tougaard, J., 2023. Are European Blue Economy ambitions in conflict with European environmental visions? Ambio 52, 1981-1991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01896-3.

Ansong, J., Gissi, E., Calado, H., 2017. An approach to ecosystem-based management in maritime spatial planning process. Ocean Coast Manag. 141, 65-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.03.005.

Barragán, J.M., de Andrés, M., 2015. Analysis and trends of the world's coastal cities and agglomerations. Ocean Coast Manag. 114, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.004.

Best practice and scientific publications. 2024. The European maritime spatial planning platform. https://maritime-spatial-planning.ec.europa.eu/msp-practice/database, 5.3.24.

Bocci, M., Markovic, M., Mlakar, A., Stancheva, M., Borg, M., Carella, F., Barbanti, A., Ramieri, E., 2024. Land-Sea-Interactions in MSP and ICZM: a regional perspective from the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Mar. Pol. 159, 105924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105924.

Cabioch, B., 2023. Les grandes villes littorales et leurs plages. Une approche par les politiques publiques de gestion à Marseille (France), Barcelone et Valence (Espagne). Phd thesis. Aix-Marseille Université. URL: https://theses.hal.science/tel-04065324v1/file/These_BCabioch_gestion_plages.pdf.

Campoprini, P., Manea, E., Bassan, N., Fabbri, F., Farella, G., Di Blasi, D., Morelli, M., Montanaro, O., Gomez-Ballesteros, M., Borg, M., Giret, O., Maragno, D., Innocenti, A., Cervera-Nunez, C., Rosina, A., Venier, C., Sarretta, A., Barbanti, A., Braidà, M., Sartori, S., Celi, A., Eleuteri, M., Rizzo, B., Garaventa, F., Campillos-Llanos, M., Tello, O., Moirano, C., Formosa, S., Hili, O., Musco, F., Gissi, E., 2019. SIMWESTMED - Initial Assessment MSP oriented (R1). https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.2590100.

Cantasano, N., Pellicone, G., lotto, F., 2017. Integrated coastal zone management in Italy: a gap between science and policy. J. Coast Conserv. 21, 317-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-016-0479-z.

Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Steenbeek, J., Kaschner, K., Lasram, F.B.R., Aguzzi, J., Ballesteros, E., Bianchi, C.N., Corbera, J., Dailianis, T., Danovaro, R., Estrada, M., Froglia, C., Galil, B.S., Gasol, J.M., Gertwagen, R., Gil, J., Guilhaumon, F., Kesner-Reyes, K., Kitsos, M.-S., Koukouras, A., Lampadariou, N., Laxamana, E., López-Fé de la Cuadra, C.M., Lotze, H.K., Martin, D., Mouillot, D., Oro, D., Raicevich, S., Rius-Barile, J., Saiz-Salinas, J.I., Vicente, C.S., Somot, S., Templado, J., Turon, X., Vafidis, D., Villanueva, R., Voultsiadou, E., 2010. The biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: estimates, patterns, and threats. PLoS One 5, e11842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011842.

Cusano, M.I., Ferrari, C., Tei, A., 2017. Port hierarchy and concentration: insights from the Mediterranean cruise market: International journal of tourism research. Int. J. Tour. Res. 19, 235-245. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2106.

Depellegrin, D., Menegon, S., Abramic, A., Aguado Hernandez, S., Larosa, F., Salvador, S., Marti Llambrich, C., 2024. Addressing ocean planning challenges in a highly crowded sea space: a case study for the regional sea of Catalonia (western mediterranean). Open Res. Eur. 4, 46. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreurope.16836.1.

Díaz-de-León, A., Díaz-Mondragón, S., 2013. Marine spatial planning and large marine ecosystems in Mexico. In: Sherman, K., Adams, S. (Eds.), Stress, Sustainability, and Development of Large Marine Ecosystems During Climate Change: Policy and Implementation. United Nations Development Programme, New York, pp. 95-105.

Ehler, C., 2021. Two decades of progress in marine spatial planning. Mar. Pol. 132, 104134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104134.

Ehler, C., Douvere, F., 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step Approach Toward Ecosystem-based Management, Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step Approach Toward Ecosystem-based Management.

Ehrlich, M.V., Overman, H.G., 2020. Place-based policies and spatial disparities across European cities. J. Econ. Perspect. 34, 128-149. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.34.3.128.

Espinosa-Tasón, J., Berbel, J., Gutiérrez-Martín, C., Musolino, D.A., 2022. Socioeconomic impact of 2005-2008 drought in Andalusian agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 826, 154148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154148.

European Commission, 2014. Directive 2014/89/EU of the european parliament and of the council of 23 July 2014, establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. In: Core EU Legislation. Official Journal of the European Union, London, pp. 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-37-54482-7-33.

European Commission, 2021. The EU Blue Economy Report 2021. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

European Commission, 2023. The EU Blue Economy Report 2023. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

European Council, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy (Water Framework Directive).

European Council, 2002. Recommendation of the Council on the Implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM).

European Council, 2007. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions - an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union.

European Council, 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).

European Environment Agency, 2024. WISE marine. https://water.europa.eu/marine, 7.1.24.

Fabbri, F., Druon, J.-N., Godley, B.J., March, D., 2024. Geospatial identification of stakeholders to support dynamic ocean management in transboundary areas. Mar. Pol. 161, 106035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106035.

FAO, 2023. The state of mediterranean and black sea fisheries 2023 - special edition. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc8888en.

Frazão Santos, C., 2016. Marine spatial planning in Portugal: an ocean policy analysis. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27421.20963.

Frazão Santos, C., Gonçalves Teixeira, Z., Janeiro, J., Sousa Gonçalves, R., Bjorkland, R., Orbach, M., 2012. The european marine strategy: contribution and challenges from a Portuguese perspective. Mar. Pol. 36, 963-968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.02.011.

Frazão Santos, C., Ehler, C.N., Agardy, T., Andrade, F., Orbach, M.K., Crowder, L.B., 2019. Marine Spatial Planning. World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation. Elsevier, pp. 571-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805052-1.00033-4.

Friess, B., Grémaud-Colombier, M., 2021. Policy outlook: recent evolutions of maritime spatial planning in the european union. Mar. Pol. 132, 103428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.01.017.

Gilbert, A.J., Alexander, K., Sardá, R., Brazinskaite, R., Fischer, C., Gee, K., Jessopp, M., Kershaw, P., Los, H.J., March Morla, D., O'Mahony, C., Pihlajamäki, M., Rees, S., Varjopuro, R., 2015. Marine spatial planning and good environmental status: a perspective on spatial and temporal dimensions. Ecol. Soc. 20, art64. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06979-200164.

Gilek, M., Armoskaite, A., Gee, K., Saunders, F., Tafon, R., Zaucha, J., 2021. In search of social sustainability in marine spatial planning: a review of scientific literature published 2005-2020. Ocean Coast Manag. 208, 105618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105618.

Greenhill, L., Stojanovic, T.A., Tett, P., 2020. Does marine planning enable progress towards adaptive governance in marine systems? Lessons from Scotland's regional marine planning process. Marit. Stud. 19, 299-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00171-5.

Gupta, K., 2012. Comparative public policy: using the comparative method to advance our understanding of the policy process. Policy Stud. J. 40, 11-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00443.x.

Guyot-Téphany, J., Davret, J., Tissière, L., Trouillet, B., 2024. Public participation in marine spatial planning in France: from minimal requirements to minimal achievements. Ocean Coast Manag. 256, 107310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2024.107310.

Hauraki Gulf Forum, 2017. Sea change - tai timu Tai pari Hauraki Gulf marine spatial plan. https://www.knowledgeaukland.org.nz/publications/sea-change-tai-ti-mu-tai-pari-hauraki-gulf-marine-spatial-plan-an-introduction-and-overview/, 1.13.25.

Iglesias-Campos, A., Rubeck, J., Sanmiguel-Esteban, D., Schwarz, G., Ansong, J.O., Isaksson, I., Quesada-Silva, M., Smith, J., Varjopuro, R., Zhang, Z., 2021. Mspglobal International Guide on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning, vol. 152.
Innocenti, A., Musco, F., 2023. Land-sea interactions: a spatial planning perspective. Sustainability 15, 9446. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129446.

Iztov, V., Rossignol, N., 2018. Regional and National Spatial Planning: New Challenges and New Opportunities, TRANSNATIONAL OBSERVATION. ESPON.

Jay, S., Flannery, W., Vince, J., Liu, W.-H., Xue, Matczak, M., Zaucha, J., Janssen, Van Tatenhove, J.P.M., Toonen, H., Morf, A., Olsen, E., Vivero, J., Rodríguez Mateos, J., Calado, H., Duff, Dean H., 2013. International progress in marine spatial planning: In: Ocean Yearbook Online. https://doi.org/10.1163/22116001-90000159.

Jouffray, J.-B., Blasiak, R., Norström, A.V., Österblom, H., Nystöm, M., 2020. The blue acceleration: the trajectory of human expansion into the ocean. One Earth 2, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onear.2019.12.016.

Kerr, S., Johnson, K., Side, J.C., 2014. Planning into the edge: integrating between the land sea divide. Mar. Pol. 47, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.023.

Kidd, S., Calado, H., Gee, K., Gilek, M., Saunders, F., 2020. Marine spatial planning and sustainability: examining the roles of integration - scale, policies, stakeholders and knowledge. Ocean Coast Manag. 191, 105182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105182.

Lagabrielle, E., Lombard, A.T., Harris, J.M., Livingstone, T.-C., 2018. Multi-scale multi-level marine spatial planning: a novel methodological approach applied in South Africa. PLoS One 13, e0192582. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192582.

Lagarias, A., Stratigea, A., 2023. Coastalization patterns in the mediterranean: a spirotemporal analysis of coastal urban sprawl in tourism destination areas. Geojournal 88, 2529–2552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10756-8.

Langlet, D., Westholm, A., 2021. Realizing the social dimension of EU coastal water management. Sustainability 13, 2261. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042261.

Li, Y., Yang, Y., Hou, Y., Liu, X., Liu, D., 2024. The practice and innovation of compatible marine utilization models in China. Front. Mar. Sci. 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmsr.2024.1435967.

Mahadeo, S., 2022. Marine spatial planning in the eastern Caribbean: trends and progress. Mar. Pol. 145, 105277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105277.

March, H., Saurf, D., Rico-Amorós, A.M., 2014. The end of scarcity? Water desalination as the new cornucopia for mediterranean Spain. J. Hydrol., Water governance across competing scales: Coupling land and water management 519, 2642–2651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.04.023.

McAteer, B., Fullbrook, L., Liu, W.-H., Reed, J., Rivers, N., Vaidianu, N., Westholm, A., Toonen, H., Van Tatenhove, J., Clarke, J., Ansong, J.O., Trouillet, B., Santos, C.F., Eger, S., Ten Brink, T., Wade, E., Flannery, W., 2022. Marine spatial planning in regional ocean areas: trends and lessons learned. Ocean Yearb. 36, 346–380. https://doi.org/10.1163/22116001-03601013.

Micheli, F., Halpern, B., Walbridge, S., Ciriaco, S., Ferretti, F., Fraschetti, S., Lewison, R., Nykjær, L., Rosenberg, A., 2013. Cumulative human impacts on mediterranean and black sea marine ecosystems: assessing current pressures and opportunities. PLoS One 8, e79889. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079889.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2017. New York Ocean Action Plan.

Olsen, E., Kleiven, A.R., Skjoldal, H.R., von Quillfeldt, C.H., 2011. Place-based management at different spatial scales. J. Coast Conserv. 15, 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-010-0108-1.

Olsen, E., Fluharty, D., Hoel, A.H., Hostens, K., Maes, F., Pecceu, E., 2014. Integration at the round table: marine spatial planning in multi-stakeholder settings. PLoS One 9, e109964. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109964.

Paneque, P., Lafuente, R., Vargas, J., 2018. Public attitudes toward water management measures and droughts: a study in southern Spain. Water 10, 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10040369.

Paramana, Th, Dassenakis, M., Bassan, N., Dallangelo, C., Campostrini, P., Raicevich, S., Ronchi, K., Giorgi, G., Murillas-Maza, A., Uyarra, M.C., Papadopoulou, N., Smith, C., Kari, K., Karen Boavonikov, S., Klančnik, K., Pavičić, M., Skejić, S., Vidjak, O., Cadiou, J.F., López-López, L., Alvarez, I., Giannoudi, L., Streftaris, N., Pagkou, P., 2023. Achieving coherence between the marine strategy framework directives and the maritime spatial planning directive. Mar. Pol. 155, 105733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105733.

Piante, C., Ody, D., 2015. BLUE GROWTH IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA: the CHALLENGE OF Good Environmental Status. MedTrends Proj. WWF-France 192.

Pistone, I., 2023. Urban coasts in socio-ecological transition. A Framework to Analyse the city-sea Interface.

Plan Bleu, 2022a. State of play of tourism in the Mediterranean. Interreg Med Sustainable Tourism Community Project. Project Report, p. 95. URL. https://planbleu.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/EN_ENF_stateoftourism PLANBLEU.pdf.

Plan Bleu\*, 2022b. Towards Sustainable Development of Marine Renewable Energies in the Mediterranean. Interreg MED Blue Growth Community project. Project Report, p. 105. URL. https://planbleu.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Report-on-Blue-Energy-in-the-Med EN.pdf.

Platjouw, F.M., 2018. Marine spatial planning in the north sea—are national policies and legal structures compatible enough? The case of Norway and the Netherlands. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 33 (1), 34–78. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-12320075.

Pomeroy, R., Douvere, F., 2008. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Mar. Pol. 32, 816–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.017.

Prévost, A., Robert, S., 2016. Local spatial planning practices in four French mediterranean coastal territories under pressure. Land Use Policy 56, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.034.

Quesada-Silva, M., Iglesias-Campos, A., Turra, A., Suárez-de Vivero, J.L., 2019. Stakeholder participation assessment framework (SPAF): a theory-based strategy to plan and evaluate marine spatial planning participatory processes. Mar. Pol. 108, 103619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103619.

Ramieri, E., Bocci, M., Markovic, M., 2019. Linking integrated coastal zone management to maritime spatial planning: the mediterranean experience. In: Zaucha, J., Gee, K. (Eds.), Maritime Spatial Planning: past, Present, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 271–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98696-8_12.

Ramieri, E., Bocci, M., Brigolin, D., Campostrini, P., Carella, F., Fadini, A., Farella, G., Gissi, E., Madeddu, F., Menegon, S., Monaco, M.R., Musco, F., Soffietti, F., Barberi, L., Barbanti, A., 2024. Designing and implementing a multi-scalar approach to maritime spatial planning: the case study of Italy. Mar. Pol. 159, 105911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105911.

Randone, M., Bocci, M., Castellani, C., Laurent, C., 2019. Safeguarding marine protected areas in the growing mediterranean blue economy. Recommendations for Maritime Transport. PHAROS4MPAs project.

Reckien, D., Salvia, M., Heidrich, O., Church, J.M., Pietrapertosa, F., De Gregorio-Hurtado, S., D'Alonzo, V., Foley, A., Simoes, S.G., Krkoska Lorencová, E., Orru, H., Orru, K., Wejs, A., Flacke, J., Olazabal, M., Geneletti, D., Feliu, E., Vasilie, S., Nador, C., Krook-Riekkola, A., Matosović, M., Fokaides, P.A., Ioannou, B.I., Flamos, A., Spyridaki, N.-A., Balzan, M.V., Fülöp, O., Paspaldzhiev, I., Grafakos, S., Dawson, R., 2018. How are cities planning to respond to climate change? Assessment of local climate plans from 885 cities in the EU-28. J. Clean. Prod. 191, 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.220.

Retzlaff, R., LeBleu, C., 2018. Marine spatial planning: exploring the role of planning practice and research. J. Plan. Lit 33, 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885421228783462.

Ricketts, P.J., Hildebrand, L., 2011. Coastal and ocean management in Canada : progress or paralysis? Coast. Manag. 39 (1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2011.544552.

Rivers, N., Truter, H.J., Strand, M., Jay, S., Portman, M., Lombard, A.T., Amir, D., Boyd, A., Brown, R.L., Cawthra, H.C., Faure Beaulieu, N., Findlay, K., Gal, G., Grossmann, Y., Perschke, M.J., Pillay, T., Pyrgies, O., Ramakulukusha, M., Smit, K.P., Stockdale, V., Stockill, J., Schwartz, I., Treibitz, T., Vargas-Fonseca, O.A., Vermeulen (Miltz), E.A., 2022. Shared visions for marine spatial planning: insights from Israel, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Coast. Manag. 220, 106069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106069.

Robert, S., Schley-Lindemann, A., 2021. How ready are we to cope with climate change? Extent of adaptation to sea level rise and coastal risks in local planning documents of southern France. Land Use Policy 104, 105354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105354.

Robert, S., Fox, D., Boulay, G., Grandclément, A., Garrido, M., Pasqualini, V., Prévost, A., Schley-Lindemann, A., Trémélo, M.-L., 2019. A framework to analyse urban sprawl in the French mediterranean coastal zone. Reg. Environ. Change 19, 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1425-4.

Rotter, A., Giannakourou, A., Argente García, J.E., Quero, G.M., Auregan, C., Triantaphyllidis, G., Venetsanopoulou, A., De Carolis, R., Efstratiou, C., Aboal, M., Abad, M.A.E., Grigaliotyte-Bembić, E., Kotzamanis, Y., Kovać, M., Ljubić Čmelar, M., Luna, G.M., Aguilera, C., Acién Fernández, F.G., Gómez Pinchetti, J.L., Manzo, S., Milašinčić, I., Nadarmija, A., Parrella, L., Pinat, M., Roussos, E., Ruel, C., Salvatori, E., Sánchez Vázquez, F.J., Semitiel García, M., Skarmeta Gómez, A.F., Ulcar, J., Chiavetta, C., 2023. Identification of marine biotechnology value chains with high potential in the northern mediterranean region. Mar. Drugs 21, 416. https://doi.org/10.3390/rd21070416.

Saunders, F., Gilek, M., Day, J., Hassler, B., McCann, J., Smythe, T., 2019. Examining the role of integration in marine spatial planning: towards an analytical framework to understand challenges in diverse settings. Ocean Coast Manag. 169, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.11.011.

Saunders, F.P., Gilek, M., Tafon, R., 2019. Adding people to the sea: conceptualizing social sustainability in maritime spatial planning. In: Zaucha, J., Gee, K. (Eds.), Maritime Spatial Planning: past, Present, Future. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98696-8_8.

Saunders, F., Gilek, M., Ikauniece, A., Tafon, R.V., Gee, K., Zaucha, J., 2020. Theorizing social sustainability and justice in marine spatial planning: Democracy, diversity, and equity. Sustainability 12, 2560. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062560.

Schaefer, N., Barale, V., 2011. Maritime spatial planning: opportunities & challenges in the framework of the EU integrated maritime policy. J. Coast Conserv. 15, 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-011-0154-3.

Sekovski, I., Newton, A., Dennison, W.C., 2012. Megacities in the coastal zone: using a driver-pressure-state-impact-response framework to address complex environmental problems. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 96, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.07.011.

Serpenti, N., Benjamins, S., Brain, S., Collu, M., Harvey, B.J., Heymans, J.J., Hughes, A. D., Risch, D., Rosinski, S., Waggitt, J.J., Wilson, B., 2021. Modeling small scale impacts of multi-purpose platforms: an ecosystem approach. Front. Mar. Sci. 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmsr.2021.694013.

Smith, G., 2018. Good governance and the role of the public in Scotland's marine spatial planning system. Mar. Pol. 94, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.017.

Smith, H.D., Maes, F., Stojanovic, T.A., Ballinger, R.C., 2011. The integration of land and marine spatial planning. J. Coast Conserv. 15, 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-010-0098-z.

Smythe, T.C., McCann, J., 2019. Achieving integration in marine governance through marine spatial planning: findings from practice in the United States. Ocean Coast Manag. 167, 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.006.

Stanhill, G., Kurtzman, D., Rosa, R., 2015. Estimating desalination requirements in semi-arid climates: a mediterranean case study. Desalination 355, 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.035.

Suárez de Vivero, J.L., Rodríguez Mateos, J.C., 2012. The Spanish approach to marine spatial planning. Marine strategy framework directive vs. EU integrated maritime policy. Mar. Pol. 36, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.03.002.
The European Maritime Spatial Planning Platform [WWW Document], n.d. URL https://maritime-spatial-planning.ec.europa.eu/(accessed 1.14.25).

Tissière, L., Trouillet, B., 2022. What participation means in marine spatial planning systems? Lessons from the French case. Plan. Pract. Res. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2022.2027638.

Todd, P.A., Heery, E.C., Loke, L.H.L., Thurstan, R.H., Kotze, D.J., Swan, C., 2019. Towards an urban marine ecology: characterizing the drivers, patterns and processes of marine ecosystems in coastal cities. Oikos 128, 1215–1242. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05946.

Trouillet, B., Jay, S., 2021. The complex relationships between marine protected areas and marine spatial planning: towards an analytical framework. Mar. Pol. 127, 104441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104441.

Trouillet, B., Guineberteau, T., de Cacqueray, M., Rochette, J., 2011. Planning the sea: the French experience. Contribution to marine spatial planning perspectives. Mar. Pol. 35, 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.012.

UNEP/MAP, 2017. 2017 Mediterranean quality status report, p. 538. URL: https://www.medqsr.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/2017MedQSR_Online_0.pdf.

UNEP/MAP, 2019. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean and its Protocols. Nairobi, p. 153. URL: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/31970/bcp2019_web_eng.pdf.

UNESCO-IOC, 2021. Technical report on current conditions and compatibility of maritime uses in the Western mediterranean. IOC Technical Series No 160. UNESCO, Paris.

Vaughan, D., Agardy, T., 2020. Chapter 2 - marine protected areas and marine spatial planning – allocation of resource use and environmental protection. In: Humphreys, J., Clark, R.W.E. (Eds.), Marine Protected Areas. Elsevier, pp. 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102698-4.00002-2.

Walsh, C., Clouting, H., Kühl-Stenzel, A., Schwemmer, H., 2024. Ecosystem-based maritime spatial planning in practice? On the limitations of a legalistic planning tradition. Town plan. Rev. 95, 643–664. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2024.29.

Westholm, A., 2018. Appropriate scale and level in marine spatial planning – management perspectives in the Baltic sea. Mar. Pol. 98, 264–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.09.021.

Wilke, M., 2023. Public participation in marine spatial planning in Iceland. Front. Mar. Sci. 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1154645.

Wong, W., 2016. Comparative public policy. In: Farazmand, A. (Ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_253-1.

Ye, G., Chou, L.M., Yang, S., Wu, J., Liu, P., Jin, C., 2015. Is integrated coastal management an effective framework for promoting coastal sustainability in China’s coastal cities? Mar. Policy 56, 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.02.009.

Yet, M., Manuel, P., DeVidi, M., MacDonald, B.H., 2022. Learning from experience: lessons from community-based engagement for improving participatory marine spatial planning. Plan. Pract. Res. 37, 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2021.2017101.

Zaucha, J., Kreiner, A., 2021. Engagement of stakeholders in the marine/maritime spatial planning process. Mar. Pol. 132, 103394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.12.013.

Zaucha, J., Gee, K., Ramieri, E., Neimane, L., Alloncle, N., Blažauskas, N., Calado, H., Cervera-Núnez, C., Kuzmanović, V.M., Stancheva, M., Witkowska, J., Schütz, S.E., Zapatero, J.R., Ehler, C.N., 2025. Implementing the EU MSP directive: current status and lessons learned in 22 EU member states. Mar. Pol. 171, 106425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106425.

Zhang, S., Wu, Q., Butt, M.J., Lv, Y.-M., Wang, Y.-E., 2024. Coastal cities governance in the context of integrated coastal zonal management: a sustainable development goal perspective under international environmental law for ‘coastal sustainability. Front. Mar. Sci. 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2024.1364554.