Content uploaded by Charles N. Ehler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charles N. Ehler on May 14, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review ARticle
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0513-x
1Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Cascais, Portugal. 2Environmental Economics Knowledge
Center, Nova School of Business and Economics, New University of Lisbon, Carcavelos, Portugal. 3Sound Seas, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4Marine and
Environmental Sciences Centre, University of the Azores, Ponta Delgada, Portugal. 5Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove, CA, USA.
6Ocean Visions Consulting, Paris, France. 7University Iuav of Venice, Venice, Italy. 8Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of
California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. 9National Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
10Marine Laboratory, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, NC, USA. 11Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and
Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany. 12University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. ✉e-mail: cfsantos@fc.ul.pt
The sustainable use and conservation of the world ocean and
its resources represent one of the 17 global goals set to ‘trans-
form our world’ in the context of the United Nations (UN)
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development1. Although such global
agreement on promoting sustainability in the ocean is relatively
recent, protecting marine ecosystems has been in the international
agenda for decades2,3, with numerous actions, approaches, frame-
works and plans being developed and implemented to support it.
These include the ecosystem approach, with its origins in the UN
Convention on Biological Diversity4, ecosystem-based management
(EBM) that grew out of the ecosystem approach5, the integrated
management concept that stemmed from Chapter 17 of the Agenda
216, or international treaties such as the UN Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS)2.
Concomitant to these developments, and incorporating many
of these concepts (for example, the ecosystem approach and inte-
grated management; Box 1), in the 1990s a management process
commonly known as marine spatial planning (MSP) emerged and
has spread widely in the last 15 years7. No single definition exists
for MSP; it takes many forms and names depending on context
(Box 1). However, it can be generally outlined as the analysis and
allocation of the spatial and temporal distribution of human uses
in the ocean, with the goal of minimizing conflicts and fostering
compatibility among such uses, as well as between human uses and
the environment8. MSP has the potential to balance multiple—and
often conflicting—human demands and to protect the environment
in a spatially explicit way8,9. Therefore it is increasingly recognized
as a vital process to achieve global ocean governance goals10,11, in
particular the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14, Life
Below Water1. MSP has gained momentum globally, and marine
spatial plans are currently under development in about 70 countries,
from high to low latitudes and across all ocean basins (except for the
Southern Ocean)7 (Fig. 1). About half of all coastal countries, com-
prising more than half of the surface area of the world’s exclusive
economic zones (EEZs), have ongoing MSP initiatives, although
most of them are in early stages of development (only 25 countries
have marine spatial plans that are already implemented or at least
government approved; Fig. 1)7.
MSP will likely keep expanding in the coming decade as new
countries start to discuss the development of ocean planning ini-
tiatives, especially in Africa and South America. For example, the
European Union (EU) funded Paddle project (‘Planning in a liq-
uid world with tropical stakes’; www-iuem.univ-brest.fr/paddle)
explores opportunities and limits of MSP in Brazil, Senegal and
Cabo Verde, although government-led initiatives are not yet in
place. MSP in international waters is also being increasingly dis-
cussed12,13, and in early 2019, the European Commission and
UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC)
jointly launched the MSPglobal program (www.mspglobal2030.org)
with the intention to support the effective implementation of marine
spatial plans worldwide.
Several conceptual and practical challenges limit the efficacy
of MSP development and implementation14. For example, ensur-
ing ecosystem conservation through MSP is rarely straightforward
because the importance of protecting marine ecosystems is often
overlooked by economic and/or political short-term goals and
objectives, often insensitive to environmental impacts15,16. In addi-
tion, improving social justice and the inclusion of social aspects
in ocean policy and planning is key for successful ocean manage-
ment17, but social complexities make it difficult to even attain a
single definition of what the ‘social dimension of MSP’ is18.
Besides these challenges to MSP, anthropogenic climate change
creates an additional, overarching and imminent one19–21. Climate
change is one of the Earth-system processes that has already crossed
its boundary for a safety operating space (both globally and for the
ocean)22,23, and a great challenge to humankind24. International trea-
ties have long dealt with setting a path to address it, the current
goal being to hold warming below 1.5–2 °C25,26. However, even if the
most optimistic scenarios are met (which may not be feasible26,27 in
face of continuously rising emissions), our planet, and particularly
Integrating climate change in ocean planning
Catarina Frazão Santos 1,2 ✉ , Tundi Agardy3, Francisco Andrade 1,
Helena Calado4, Larry B. Crowder5, Charles N. Ehler 6, Sara García-Morales 1, Elena Gissi 7,
Benjamin S. Halpern 8,9, Michael K. Orbach10, Hans-Otto Pörtner 11,12 and Rui Rosa 1
The acceleration of global warming and increased vulnerability of marine social-ecological systems affect the benefits provided
by the ocean. Spatial planning of marine areas is vital to balance multiple human demands and ensure a healthy ocean, while
supporting global ocean goals. To thrive in a changing ocean though, marine spatial planning (MSP) must effectively integrate
climate change. By reviewing existing literature on MSP and climate change, we explore the links between them and with ocean
sustainability, highlight management challenges, and identify potential pathways to guide action towards the effective integra-
tion of climate impacts in MSP.
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain
Review ARticle NaTure SuSTaiNaBiliTy
our ocean28, will still experience considerable change. As ocean
warming keeps accelerating29 and the vulnerability of marine organ-
isms keeps increasing30, the benefits provided by the ocean will keep
changing and cause change in the way human populations have
access to, and use the ocean31,32. In a planet with over 7.7 billion
people33, almost half of which inhabiting areas close to the coast,
these changes will have multiple implications for human well-being
and prosperity31.
A number of studies from around the world address the nexus
between climate change and MSP at varying lengths (from brief
references to full discussions) and spatial scales (local to global;
Fig. 2). Missing from these discussions, however, is a coherent
and clear set of messages and guidelines on how to integrate cli-
mate change in MSP. Alongside—or perhaps also because of—the
scattered nature of these discussions, in practice few marine spa-
tial plans include climate change considerations in their general
planning framework (for example, identifying the need to prevent
climate impacts in ocean uses and ecosystems)3,20. Even fewer con-
sider adaptation and mitigation to climate change as a planning
objective for which specific actions are put in place3,20. There is
thus a pressing need for a more in-depth, thorough conversation11
both within the scientific community and with policymakers,
lawmakers, planners and managers to strengthen the integration of
climate change into MSP.
In this Review, we analyse and synthesize information from over
150 scientific references published since 2008, selected through
a qualitative systematic review, that include both MSP and cli-
mate change in their contents (see Supplementary Table 4 and
Supplementary Methods). Three main topics emerge from the anal-
ysis: (1) MSP as a solution to mitigate climate impacts and support
UN SDGs 13 and 14; (2) integration of climate change in MSP; and
(3) potential pathways for MSP adaptation to a changing climate.
We explore the MSP–climate change–ocean sustainability nexus
(Fig. 3), emphasizing the importance of understanding connections,
synergies and trade-offs to finding new solutions and pathways to
respond to ocean sustainability challenges34–36. Advancing the dis-
cussion on this topic will contribute to further thinking and debate,
and to the social and political recognition of its key importance.
Climate change–MSP–ocean sustainability nexus
The general pathways that link climate change effects, MSP and
ocean sustainability are depicted in Fig. 3. Climate-related drivers
of change (for example, primary ones such as ocean warming or
acidification, and secondary ones such as deoxygenation or sea level
Box 1 | MSP-related definitions
What is marine spatial planning (MSP)?
No single denition exists for MSP; it takes many forms and
names depending on context. Still, the most commonly used
one is from the IOC-UNESCO guide8, where MSP is dened
as “a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and
temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to
achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually
specied through a political process”. According to the same
reference, eective MSP is ecosystem-based, integrated (across
sectors, agencies and levels of government), area-based, adaptive,
strategic (that is, focused on the long term), and participatory
(with active involvement of stakeholders). MSP development
also includes a number of key steps that are linked through many
feedback loops, rather than a linear process:
1. Identifying need and establishing authority;
2. Obtaining nancial support;
3. Organizing the planning process;
4. Organizing stakeholder participation;
5. Dening and analysing existing conditions;
6. Dening and analysing future conditions;
7. Preparing and approving the spatial management plan;
8. Implementing and enforcing the spatial management plan;
9. Monitoring and evaluating performance; and
10. Adapting the process (revision).
MSP is not an end in itself, but a prac tical way to create and establish
a more rational use of the ocean space and the interactions among
ocean uses, to balance demands for development with the need
to protect the environment, and to deliver social and economic
outcomes (msp.ioc-unesco.org).
In the EU, MSP is commonly referred to as maritime (over ‘marine’)
spatial planning. Although the denition is similar58, to some
authors the linguistic choice of ‘maritime’ goes beyond semantics,
translating a deeper focus on blue growth and the development
of the ocean economy3 (and a shi from an ecosystem approach
focused on ensuring environmental health).
Marine spatial management or sea-use management are also used
by some authors as equivalent terms to MSP8,9,123. Although MSP is
commonly characterized as ‘just planning’, in reality MSP is about
marine spatial management124. is includes three main phases of
management: planning and analysis to support the development of
a management plan; implementation of the management measures
of the plan; and monitoring and evaluation of the marine spatial
plan performance, that results in changes and adaptation of the
plan over time8,124.
What MSP is not.
Ocean zoning. Zoning is a key part of MSP, but zoning is not
planning8. It is only one tool to implement the goals of a marine
spatial plan124. Ocean zoning is a set of regulations and maps that
specify prohibitions on, or permission for, ocean uses in a given
management area9. Ultimately, if zones are created without a
planning vision, or consideration of other ocean uses, the result
is oen a chaotic pattern of overlapping and conicting zones124.
Marine conservation planning or marine protected area
planning. According to the International Union for Conservation
of Nature (IUCN), marine protected areas are areas that have been
reserved by laws or other means to protect part of or all the enclosed
marine environment. While conservation planning focuses on
fullling protection or conservation goals, MSP is multi-objective
planning. Indeed, a network of marine protected areas might be
one outcome of MSP, but the latter seeks to integrate and balance
economic, social and environmental objectives through an
integrated management plan124.
Ecosystem-based management. A management framework
that integrates biological, social and economic factors into a
comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing the
sustainability, diversity and productivity of natural resources.
Sometimes it is used interchangeably with ‘ecosystem approach’4,5.
Integrated coastal management or integrated coastal zone
management. A process that is focused on the management of
coastal areas using an integrated approach in an attempt to achieve
sustainability. is concept was born during the Earth Summit of Rio
de Janeiro in 19926. Contrary to MSP that usually focuses on large
marine areas (from coastal to open-ocean regions), coastal zone
management tends to be more focused on the land–sea interface125.
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain
Review ARticle
NaTure SuSTaiNaBiliTy
rise21) are altering physical, chemical and biological conditions in
the ocean, affecting the composition of entire ecosystems, includ-
ing their spatial structure and functioning28 (Fig. 3, arrow 1). Such
changes in biotic and abiotic conditions alter the delivery of marine
ecosystem services (MES), that is, the benefits to human societ-
ies derived from nature, both in terms of their spatial-temporal
distribution and intensity37,38 (Fig. 3, arrow 2). Changes in MES will
in turn affect dependent human uses of the ocean (for example,
fisheries, aquaculture and tourism; Fig. 3, arrow 3), both directly
and indirectly31,38, at multiple scales and to varying degrees. This
applies equally to maritime activities and uses related to the ‘blue
economy’ and to marine conservation39. Changes in ocean condi-
tions will also directly affect ocean uses, even if they do not rely on
MES (Fig. 3, arrow 4). For example, shipping, renewable energy and
seabed mining can be affected as a result of increased frequency of
extreme weather events that will intensify danger at sea (damag-
ing infrastructures and limiting human operations), or changes in
circulation patterns of winds and currents40,41.
Not all ocean uses will be affected in the same way, some being
globally more sensitive to a changing ocean than others21. There will
also be considerable regional variation, because as climate impacts
vary from place to place the same ocean use will be differently
affected depending on geographical context21 (for example, fish
production is expected to increase at high latitudes and decrease at
low and mid-latitudes, thus fisheries’ vulnerability to climate change
will not be the same worldwide42).
From a spatial management perspective, a changing ocean
implies that human uses will experience spatial-temporal change
(through local decrease or increase, or relocation21). Ocean users
may adjust to non-stationary marine resources by moving accord-
ingly (for example, fisheries and marine conservation43,44), or
may take advantage of new spatial opportunities to expanding to
new areas (for example, the loss of large extensions of sea ice will
open new areas for fossil fuel and renewable energy development
in Arctic latitudes41, and shipping patterns will be globally modi-
fied due to the opening of new navigable routes near the poles45,46)
(Fig. 4). However, ocean uses may also decrease their intensity
due to spatial-related limitations (for example, when fish stocks
move into or beyond national jurisdiction and fisheries cannot
change their focus43). Accompanying these changes, there will be
potential new conflicts among uses (for example, uses that move
to areas already occupied), new conflicts between uses and the
environment (for example, exploitation of previously inaccessible
areas of high ecological value47 and new cumulative environmental
impacts48), and new legal issues (for example, changing jurisdictions
and ocean activities that require use permits32). MSP will need to
work with these new conflicts and issues—which are at the core of
MSP processes8,9—and still meet multiple ecological, economic and
social objectives in an increasingly crowded and human-pressured
ocean48,49 (Fig. 3, arrow 5).
While MSP will be affected by a changing ocean, MSP initiatives
that are designed and implemented with explicit climate-related
MSP approved, implemented or
revised for entire maritime space
MSP approved, implemented or
revised only for specific areas
Plans completed but
not approved MSP under development No official MSP
Fig. 1 | Global status of MSP development in 2019. EEZs of countries where: marine spatial plans are approved by government or implemented for the
entire marine space (red); marine spatial plans are approved or implemented only for a specific area within the EEZ, such as a province, municipality,
state or marine reserve (dark orange); marine spatial plans are fully developed but not approved by government (orange); marine spatial plans are still
under development (yellow); no formal MSP initiatives are being carried out (grey). From the 70 countries/territories with ongoing MSP initiatives, only
25 countries have marine spatial plans in place—either partially or for the entire maritime space (see Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 and Supplementary
Methods). The latter include 15 nations with plans effectively implemented, and 10 nations with plans approved by government. Only seven countries
(Australia, Belgium, China, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and United States) have undertaken one or more revision processes, and now have second- or
third-generation marine spatial plans.
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain
Review ARticle NaTure SuSTaiNaBiliTy
objectives can also notably contribute to minimize climate
impacts21,32,50,51 (Fig. 3, arrow 6), support climate adaptation
and mitigation actions (Fig. 3, arrows 7a and 7b), and further
promote the sustainable use and conservation of the ocean
(Fig. 3, arrows 8a and 8b)1.
Some studies emphasize that the challenge of climate change
requires integrated, cross-sectoral approaches to manage ocean
use50. Climate adaptation planning cannot be developed on a
sector-by-sector basis (for example, for fisheries, tourism and con-
servation) because adaptation actions that are effective against one
issue might be maladaptive to another52. There is a need to plan
holistically instead (SDG target 14.21)—which, by definition, MSP
can provide for51–53.
Alongside, it is critical to ensure healthy, well-functioning, resil-
ient marine ecosystems (SDG target 14.21) in a climate change era32,
as these are expected to better adjust to changing conditions and
continue providing the goods and services needed to maintain
human well-being9. MSP can foster such resilience32,51 by reducing
Global
Regional
to local
n = 57
n = 96
Absence of studies
2 6 8 10 14 18 25
Number of studies
4
a
b c
Connection between topics
Number of publications
75
50
25
0
DIS BS IND SEP
Local
National
Regional
Global
73
22
58
CO2e
Number of climate change publications
29,500
19,500
9,500
0
1988 1998 2008 2018
0
45
95
145
195
Year
CO2e
CO2e
Number of MSP and MSP–CC publications
Fig. 2 | Overview of climate change and MSP literature. a, Geographic distribution of studies that simultaneously address MSP and climate change
(n = 153), by marine ecoregion122. Most studies pertain to Europe (n = 38) and North America (n = 28), the two regions that also enclose a higher number
of MSP initiatives7. Global studies are not included in the figure as they apply to all ecoregions equally. b, Publication trends for climate change (green)
and MSP studies (blue) have increased through time, particularly in the last decade. The number of studies that simultaneously address MSP and climate
change (MSP–CC, red) also follows an increasing trend, although at a much smaller scale (for 2008–2019, these studies represent 13% of the publications
on MSP, and 0.06% of the publications on climate change). c, Overview of concepts from publications of the MSP–CC subset (red) in b. While most
studies refer to both topics separately (SEP) or through an indirect discussion (IND), 58 references establish a direct connection between MSP and climate
change. Often, such connection is made by a brief statement (BS) relating both topics, while in other cases authors provide a more detailed discussion
(DIS)—at varying lengths and spatial scales. See Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Tables 3–5 and Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 for details.
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain
Review ARticle
NaTure SuSTaiNaBiliTy
non-climate stressors and pressures (for example, pollution, over-
fishing and habitat loss—SDG targets 14.1, 14.2 and 14.41) through
spatial management actions, or by ensuring effective protection of
critical marine areas and climate refugia3,8 (SDG target 14.61). MSP
can also promote social-economic resilience to climate change
(SDG targets 13.1 and 13.31), for example by involving coastal
stakeholders and communities in the planning process, using local
knowledge to identify new management actions and solutions, and
Ecosystem
structure and
functioning
Anthropogenic
climate change
Ocean
conditions
Marine
ecosystem
services
Human uses
and activities
Marine spatial
planning
1 2
5
4
6
Conserve and
sustainably use the ocean
and its resources
Urgent action to
combat climate change
and its impacts
Minimization of
climate impacts
9
3
8a
8b
7b
7a
Fig. 3 | Conceptual model of the nexus among MSP, climate change and ocean sustainability, and direct relationships to UN SDGs. Climate-induced
changes in ocean conditions and in marine ecosystems structure and functioning will lead to changes in the distribution and intensity of ocean-related
human uses. Such redistribution of uses will lead to new potential use–use and use–environment conflicts, together with legal issues, which are at the core
of MSP processes. MSP needs to be able to incorporate these challenges and dynamics to support the implementation of global sustainability goals28.
The link between MSP and SDG 14, Life Below Water1, is unequivocal as by definition MSP is all about promoting the conservation and sustainable use of
the ocean. If properly considering the climate dimension, MSP can also play an important role in supporting climate adaptation and mitigation, and the
implementation of SDG 13, Climate Action1. See detailed pathways, specific SDG targets and corresponding flux numbers in the main text. SDG icons are
used with UN permission (www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment; the content of this publication has not been approved by the UN and does not reflect the
views of the UN or its officials or Member States).
Fig. 4 | A crowded ocean under a changing climate. This cartoon illustrates the challenge of meeting multiple objectives in an increasingly crowded and
changing ocean—a challenge MSP will have to deal with. There is a clear reference to the Arctic Ocean, where previously inaccessible areas are becoming
available for human exploitation due to reductions in sea-ice cover, and where spatial management challenges are expected to be great12,45,47. There is
also a clear reference to spatially dynamic marine protected areas that move with their target species44,118. Cartoon created by visual artist Bas Kohler
(www.baskohler.nl).
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain
Review ARticle NaTure SuSTaiNaBiliTy
anticipating (and avoiding) new conflicts between uses8,51—all of
which are essential to empower human populations and increase
their adaptive capacity51.
However, it is important to bear in mind that promoting eco-
logical resilience is more difficult when marine spatial plans do not
have at their core a conservation foundation (for example, when
prioritizing blue growth without a clear compromise with achiev-
ing healthy functioning of ecosystems)15,16, or that resilience-based
management does not always achieve expected results (for example,
protection of coral reefs in the Great Barrier Reef)54,55. Some studies
emphasize that only effective climate mitigation actions can fully
protect ocean ecosystems from climate impacts, which goes far
beyond the MSP realm (as of other area-based management pro-
cesses), requiring different, more global solutions32,39,55 (for example,
global policies and treaties).
Nonetheless, there are those who advocate that MSP can con-
tribute to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (SDG target
13.21). Expectations are that renewable energy infrastructures will
become commonplace in the ocean over the next decades, and that
certain ocean areas may be assigned to carbon capture and stor-
age56—either because of national or international commitments to
deliver a higher percentage of energy from renewable sources (to
reduce GHG emissions)25,57 or because of non-climate goals related
to promoting maritime economies growth58. MSP can support this
expansion by promoting the appropriate allocation of areas to both
the installation of renewable energy developments (for example,
offshore winds, waves and currents)59 and blue carbon capture and
storage57,60 (for example, areas for the conservation of blue carbon
ecosystems; www.thebluecarboninitiative.org); or by decreasing
conflicts and fostering compatibilities with other activities, and
helping stakeholders and policymakers to perceive the advantages
of having these uses in place8.
MSP can also contribute to climate mitigation by prioritizing the
allocation of space (or facilitating the attribution of permits to the
use of such space) to ocean uses and activities that choose to use
new eco-efficient technologies and power sources that tend to zero
emissions (for example, fuel-efficient shipping, electric engines,
solar and wind power)—this way counteracting the normal contri-
bution of such uses (for example, shipping, fisheries or tourism) to
accelerating GHG emissions (Fig. 3, arrow 9)61,62. More pervasively,
MSP can limit the available space for polluting activities that do not
engage in decreasing the rate of GHG emissions.
Depending on how MSP considers the climate dimension, these
pathways that link MSP to UN SDGs and targets may, or may not,
unfold. It is then critical to understand how marine planners, man-
agers, policymakers and lawmakers can incorporate uncertain
‘future’ dynamics in MSP initiatives (particularly at the national
level), monitor to see how rapidly changes are happening, and miti-
gate impacts through adaptive planning and management.
Integrating the climate dimension into planning
Effective ocean management and governance must acknowledge
that marine species move in response to shifting climate, changing
in time and space even if at imperceptible speeds31,32,44. Marine spa-
tial plans are no different. As MSP operates in a changing ocean,
properly addressing and integrating climate effects is vital50,63,64
to keep plans viable, relevant and useful in the long term21,32.
However, climate change is often neglected as a factor in MSP pro-
cesses. A recent study highlights that only three EU member states
(Netherlands, United Kingdom and Sweden) have marine spatial
plans that consider climate adaptation and mitigation as one of their
objectives, sometimes also including climate impacts as a manage-
ment concern in MSP monitoring and evaluation stages3. All other
member states largely disregard climate change in their MSP docu-
ments3. Although there are more MSP processes around the world
that also recognize a changing climate as a threat or challenge—
for example, Rhode Island in the United States, Abu Dhabi in the
United Arab Emirates, or Seychelles (msp.ioc-unesco.org)—this
lack of integration seems to be the overall trend20. This means that,
in practice, climate-related impacts end up being largely ignored by
marine planners, managers and policymakers3.
Some authors suggest that such lack of integration is because
MSP conceptually arose without any reference to a changing cli-
mate32 and planning future ocean use is a somewhat recent con-
cept47. Yet, the decade-old MSP guide by IOC-UNESCO identifies
the analysis of future conditions as one of the ‘key steps’ to develop-
ing MSP8—and in line with it many authors acknowledge that MSP
is all about the future11, a way to look forward and to guide human
action8,9,47 toward a vision for tomorrow’s ocean20.
To others, climate change is not properly considered in
MSP because the majority of marine management approaches,
MSP included, are largely static and do not take into account the
dynamic nature of the ocean and its uses44,65. Marine spatial plans
are static ‘images’ with little or no margin for dynamics20. Even
when considering the future (for example, scenario building), this is
commonly done by using static predictions (for example, habitat
maps of a single time stamp)20 rather than by considering ocean
dynamics (for example, including the latter when building scenarios
at 10–30 years).
Another appointed reason for the lack of integration of climate
change in MSP is that, in practice, planning and management often
end up being reactive, that is, responding to problems only as they
arise19,66. This can occur for a variety of reasons. When developing
MSP and in a context where resources tend to be limited, proactively
considering climate impacts may represent additional initial costs8,51
to develop scenario analysis, vulnerability assessments or modelling
tools19,67. Also, there can be resistance to including climate change in
MSP, either because this requires new skills in the planning team51,
because of a tendency for humans to avoid behavioural change until
impacts strongly affect well-being19, or due to reluctance justified on
the uncertainty of future climate predictions20.
A final reason for the lack of integration of climate change as
a major driver for dynamic MSP relates to nation-specific insti-
tutional (jurisdictional) frameworks and to power allocation and
power relations. These hinder effective adaptation of governance
systems65,68—which calls for a transformation in the manage-
ment system in parallel (or at least, in response) to changes in the
system being managed, for example through a transition manage-
ment approach68,69.
Still, different methodologies and approaches can be used to sup-
port the integration of climate impacts in marine spatial plans. The
main ones are tackled in the following subsections.
Visioning and scenario analysis. Scenario analysis has been iden-
tified as the most promising approach to inform MSP adaptation
to future evolving conditions20. Spatial scenarios are not plans; they
are future visions that provide insights into how a MSP manage-
ment area could look, for example in 10–20 years70,71. There will
always be multiple alternative futures. In each of them human uses
will be differently distributed in space and time depending on the
socio-political options underlying management and governance
decisions8,20 (for example, prioritizing marine conservation, blue
growth or cultural aspects). Scenarios are built using different
approaches (for example, qualitative and quantitative) and com-
bining methods to presenting alternative ‘storylines’ on how the
future may unfold. Discussing these storylines allows for a better
understanding on how different development pathways can affect
the future (under different assumptions about drivers of change and
their impacts)71,72. Scenario-building processes can be exploratory
(‘what can be done?’), normative (‘what must be done to achieve a
desired future?’) or predictive (‘what is the most likely situation?’).
By using results from modelling and mapping tools to explore the
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain
Review ARticle
NaTure SuSTaiNaBiliTy
consequences of different planning and management decisions,
visioning and scenario analysis provide a pathway to integrate cli-
mate impacts in MSP practice. However, coupling climate-related
impacts and socio-political factors is needed to properly reflect the
complexity of social-ecological systems, because governance deci-
sions are sometimes more important in determining outcomes than
climate impacts alone73.
Representing a shared vision and explicitly incorporating it with
quantitative, analytical tools is not always straightforward. There are
examples of MSP processes that successfully include spatial scenar-
ios (for example, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden and Abu Dhabi3,74;
msp.ioc-unesco.org). However, others show that there is a need to
bridge the gap between the will to represent future use and climate
change impacts, and the ability to do it (for example, Belize and
St. Kitts and Nevis)75,76. The Symphony tool is a specific example of
a tool developed to support strategic planning in Swedish MSP, and
that now includes climate change projections (for example, tem-
perature, salinity and ice-cover)74. Another example is the ACCESS
MSP scenario tool that incorporates climate considerations in the
Arctic region, although not corresponding to a legally binding MSP
initiative47. Other types of decision support tools such as Marxan
(systematic conservation planning tool)77,78, InVEST (integrated val-
uation of ecosystem services and trade-offs tool)75, or the Bayesian
Belief Network–GIS modelling framework79 can be used to explore
the consequences and threats associated to different spatial man-
agement decisions—such analysis being essential to produce knowl-
edge for planning under a changing ocean. Nevertheless, it is argued
that there are few examples of studies using such decision support
tools in climate change contexts, and only for near-term scenarios20.
Modelling and mapping change. Modelling tools have been widely
used to estimate near- and long-term alterations in marine eco-
systems and human uses resulting from climate change—such as
changes in fisheries42,73, aquaculture80, shipping46 or biodiversity
distribution31. Several authors maintain that estimating and map-
ping these changes in ecosystem services over space and time—and
in human activities that rely on such services—is essential for MSP
design under a changing ocean51,63,81–83. And new modelling and
mapping tools can represent a step forward in ensuring this knowl-
edge integration64,67,79.
Some studies refer to using global change projections (based
on different Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
emission scenarios)26,28 together with predictive species distribu-
tion models (long-term projections from an ensemble of ecosystem
models). These are used to identify changes in the distribution and
extent of priority marine habitats81 or ‘hotspots’ of change83 (areas
with substantial and directional change of ecosystem components).
Global change projections for sea surface temperature, pH, dissolved
oxygen and sea surface height26 (under different Representative
Concentration Pathways (RCPs)—RCP8.5 to RCP3-PD) have
been applied, for example, to estimate future changes in the
spatial-temporal distribution of coral reefs53, fish stocks and fish-
eries53,84, sea-ice cover50, or regionally differentiated changes in
sea level8. A number of studies also emphasize the importance of
mapping species assemblages (mostly benthic communities) and
ecological boundaries64,85,86 in providing baselines against which to
measure future impacts.
It is important to bear in mind, however, that predicting future
climate conditions and their impacts on marine social-ecological
systems includes a certain level of uncertainty20,50. Using abiotic shift
models to predict species range alterations, and mapping ecological
boundaries is also not sufficient to fully incorporate climate impacts
in MSP. Further predictions, at more local scales, on how human
activities are expected to increase, decrease or relocate as a result
of environmental change21 (Fig. 4) are, for example, key to inform
‘climate-smart’ or ‘climate ready’ marine spatial plans.
Still, a range of new, useful tools will become available (contrib-
uting to advances in the field) as remote sensing, new monitoring
technologies, and global systems for collecting and sharing data
are refined56.
Risk and vulnerability analysis. Spatial assessments of exposure,
vulnerability (either social, economic, cultural, ecological, or a mix
of them) and risk have been identified as part of the solution to
‘climate-proof’ MSP11,21,83. In addition to identifying spatial-temporal
changes in marine ecosystems and human uses, MSP requires knowl-
edge on where the consequences of such changes are most signifi-
cant11,53,63. That is, where marine social-ecological systems are more
vulnerable (susceptible and predisposed to harm), exposed (present
in places that can be adversely affected), and where the probability
of hazardous events (for example, sea-level rise and extreme events)
is higher87,88. This allows for the identification of key problematic
areas88, where adaptation actions will be most needed85,89.
These spatial assessments can, however, be challenging. There
are multiple and overlapping definitions for each of these concepts
(risk, vulnerability and exposure) and a myriad of corresponding
assessment methodologies and frameworks90. The selection of a
particular one is thus a complex, subjective process. As MSP initia-
tives take place at different spatial scales around the world (from
local to national/regional levels)7 and climate impacts do not affect
all locations, economic sectors and groups of people equally, there
will never be a one-size solution to fit all cases11,21. Global analyses21
must, therefore, be deepened and applied at a scale that is relevant
to MSP (not only within the implementation area of the plan, but
also considering its surroundings to allow for the identification
of relevant sources of influence8). We must start building a deep
understanding of the vulnerability and exposure of social-ecological
systems in MSP management areas. For example, what ocean uses
are present (or are expected in the future)? What is their socioeco-
nomic importance? What drivers of change are expected to affect
them, and to what extent? These analyses will bring to the forefront
important social-ecological linkages and methodological limita-
tions that will require further investment in the future11,63.
Adaptive management
MSP is continually iterative and adaptive by nature8,56, because
planning (if developed properly) has no endpoint and needs to be
consistently adjusted over time19,20,52. In the particular context of a
changing climate the need to ensure dynamic, flexible and adaptive
MSP solutions is even more urgently needed20,21,32,83. No single MSP
initiative will be able to anticipate all potential future impacts from
climate change and other human stressors19. Attempting to plan for
all cases91 would imply a major use of resources (for example, time,
human and financial) with no guarantee of success because of the
high uncertainty involved (even with continually refined forecasts
and using the best predictive tools)28,63,67,92. Finding the pathways
to truly develop dynamic and flexible MSP can be complex—given
the variety of issues, challenges or opportunities that need to be
dealt with, under a diversity of geographical contexts and settings.
However, a number of management approaches have been identi-
fied as having potential to support the management of ocean uses
under change. These include dynamic ocean management44,93,94,
anticipatory zoning32,82,95, just-in-time planning21,91, or anticipatory
bidding for use rights (a combination of dynamic ocean manage-
ment and anticipatory zoning)32 (Table 1).
Such approaches fall under adaptive management, which is
conceptually embedded in the MSP framework8,56. Adaptive man-
agement allows MSP to be modified by changing its goals and objec-
tives, by altering desired outcomes, or by modifying management
actions56. However, challenges to implementing adaptive manage-
ment need to be addressed, such as the ability to incorporate change
in governance and jurisdictional frameworks96,97. Despite the key
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain
Review ARticle NaTure SuSTaiNaBiliTy
Table 1 | Pathways to support the inclusion of climate change in MSP
Approach Solution / good
practice Description Real examples
1. Integrating
climate change
impacts in
MSP policies
and plans
1.1. Recognizing
climate change as a
threat or challenge
This is the underlying premise for MSP to be able to
effectively address and incorporate the climate change
dimension and thrive in a dynamic and uncertain future21.
Several MSP plans and policies recognize climate change
in their objectives, but often in a very general, vague way
without really integrating it through specific measures or
actions.
Marine spatial plans. The Netherlands, United
Kingdom and Sweden consider adaptation and
mitigation to climate change as one objective of
their plans for which specific actions are put in
place3. Portugal and Malta plans only mention
climate change as a challenge in general, while for
example Germany, Belgium and Latvia mention
it in the planning objectives or measures3. MSP
initiatives in Morocco, Indonesia, Jamaica, Panama
and United Arab Emirates also mention climate
change (msp.ioc-unesco.org).
MSP policies. The EU MSP Directive (the major MSP
policy in the EU) stresses that marine spatial plans
are to contribute to resilience to climate change
impacts, taking into consideration climate-induced
long-term changes58. Yet, the challenge of a
changing climate is not addressed in the procedural
steps that member states are actually expected to
establish to contribute to the Directive objectives
(that is, its ‘minimum requirements’)58. No potential
pathway on how to put these concepts into practice
is thus identified.
1.2. Including
climate change
in spatial-use
scenarios and
visioning processes
When defining and analysing future conditions for MSP8,
future sea-use scenarios are to be developed and analysed.
This includes projecting current trends in spatial and
temporal needs of both existing human uses and new
demands for ocean space, and identifying and selecting
alternative futures. Climate change can be included
in these scenarios, anticipating related conflicts and
opportunities8, and allowing for more informed planning
and decision-making63,83. In some MSP initiatives specific
scenarios for climate change are developed.
For MSP in the Netherlands, three alternative
spatial-use scenarios were developed, being
integrated with alternative sea level rise scenarios8.
Climate change scenarios (optimistic and
catastrophic) were developed by stakeholders when
establishing visions for MSP in the western tropical
Pacific Ocean111. The spatial vision experiment of
Flanders Bays (Belgium) aimed to ensure protection
against sea level rise3.
1.3. Using modelling
and mapping tools Modelling and mapping tools can be used to support
scenarios and visioning processes. Modelling and mapping
changes in ecosystem services and related human activities
over space and time is essential for MSP design under
a changing ocean51,63,81. Several mapping and modelling
tools can be used, from more sectoral (for example,
aquaculture, shipping and renewable energy)46,79,80 to more
comprehensive ones47,74 .
The Symphony tool, developed for Swedish MSP, is
used to test scenarios and support climate-adapted
strategic planning, and includes cumulative
impacts mapping and climate change projections
(temperature, salinity and ice-cover)74. The ACCESS
ArcGIS online MSP tool, developed for the Arctic
Ocean to store, manage, interrogate and access
regulatory and spatial-temporal information to
support MSP, specifically incorporates climate
considerations47. Analysis of the distribution of
hotspots of ecological change and ocean uses in the
northeast Atlantic Ocean is identified as part of a
climate-ready solution for MSP83. Maps produced
with Marxan and Zonation are used to analyse
exposure to climate change in the west coast of
Madagascar and support MSP78.
1.4. Climate-related
vulnerability and
risk analyses
Results from vulnerability and risk analyses can also
be used to support MSP scenarios and visioning
processes. Existing tools and frameworks to assess risk
and vulnerability of marine social-ecological systems to
climate change tend to follow a sectoral approach (for
example, assessments for fisheries, aquaculture, shipping
and conservation). Yet, integrated approaches to be used
specifically in the context of MSP are under development.
Social-ecological vulnerability of small-scale
fisheries in Moorea (French Polynesia) was
analysed to inform and optimize national MSP112.
Cumulative risk of human activities was assessed
in two MSP areas in the United States – northeast
Atlantic and mid-Atlantic planning regions113.
Vulnerability of marine habitats’ capacity to deliver
ecosystem services was evaluated using a climate
scenario, together with its potential to inform
MSP in Portugal114. A preliminary approach was
developed to analyse the vulnerability of MSP and
the blue economy to climate change in European
coastal countries115.
contined
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain
Review ARticle
NaTure SuSTaiNaBiliTy
importance of an adaptive approach to MSP being widely recog-
nized (and even identified as “the single most important weapon
in our armoury” to achieve effective, efficient and equitable ocean
management9), this is rarely operationalized20. For some, this is the
consequence of little research on MSP monitoring and evaluation
effectiveness56, short implementation times and limited experience
of marine spatial plans that have been implemented and revised20,98
(see Fig. 1 caption). The know-how expected from a global endorse-
ment of MSP (www.mspglobal2030.org) in coming years should,
however, contribute considerably to overcome these limitations98.
More importantly, ensuring political commitment, willpower and
institutional (legal) ability97,99 to continue adjusting MSP initiatives
as they evolve will be essential8,12,100.
Surfing the waves of change
There are still uncertainties regarding the extent and magnitude
of how global climate change will modify the ocean in years to
come28. It is certain though, that the ocean and its uses will undergo
change28. In such a future, only by finding ways to continually adapt
to uncertain changes will we achieve effective, efficient and equitable
Approach Solution / good
practice Description Real examples
2. Promoting
adaptation to
climate-related
change
2.1. Dynamic ocean
management Planning approach intended to reduce conflicts between
dynamic resources and human activities on the move.
Using near real-time data (for example, from remote
sensing) it allows for the designation of management
areas whose boundaries change in space and time in
response to shifts in ocean resources and ocean uses93,94.
In addition to providing flexibility, this approach promotes
increased adequacy and efficiency in ocean use by
supporting the development of human activities in more
appropriate places, thus narrowing their spatial-temporal
requirements44. Potential for MSP is well established44, yet
real applications tend to be more sectoral (for example,
fisheries and conservation).
Dynamic solutions are used for fisheries
management in the United States (New England,
California and Hawaii) and Australia44,93,94,116; for
marine mammal protection in the east coast of
United States44 and Canada117; and for offshore
aquaculture operations in Tasmania32. Potential for
mobile protected areas in the High Seas to support
resilience to climate change effects was recently
highlighted118.
2.2. Anticipatory
zoning A priori allocation of areas to particular ocean uses in the
future—or to their exclusion—in anticipation of climate
change effects32,82,95. This has the potential to be used
as a precautionary legal tool (protecting and preserving
the ecological integrity of most sensitive ecosystems)32.
It fosters flexibility by allowing responsible entities to
make decisions before ocean uses are in place, thus
avoiding political and legal problems, anticipating conflicts
and prioritizing ocean uses before costly infrastructure
investments are made32.
Areas were closed to human uses (for example,
commercial fishing) in the Arctic Ocean in
anticipation of sea-ice loss, using the status of
marine protected areas or special protected
areas32,47. Preferred sand extraction zones were
established in the Netherlands to support climate
adaptation, namely the protection of low-lying
coastline against sea level rise8.
2.3. Adaptive
management Based on the concept of learning by doing, and on
adjusting actions and strategies according to obtained
results, adaptive management is conceptually embedded
in the MSP framework8,56. The need for adaptability in
MSP relates to moving marine ecosystems (that change
their distribution and extent over time and space)81,119;
social systems being dynamic (with changes in policies,
management practices, economic conditions, societal and
stakeholders’ interests and expectations, existing human
uses, and new demands for ocean space)8,9,20,50,56,84,100,120;
and new knowledge becoming available or scientific and
technological advances11,19,20,120. Adaptive management
largely relies on two main steps, identified as vital for MSP
adaptability8,9,19,20,50,56,66,120,121: performance monitoring and
evaluation; and revision. Monitoring allows managers
to measure results and evaluate if goals and objectives
are being met52,53,100—without it, success cannot be
distinguished from failure56. The process must then be
revised on a periodic basis21,51,120 and modified to overcome
limitations19.
Only seven nations with implemented marine
spatial plans have undertaken one or more revision
processes (Australia, Belgium, China, Germany,
the Netherlands, Norway and United States7; msp.
ioc-unesco.org), thus effectively completing the
adaptive management cycle.
2.4. Just-in-time
planning A planning approach that instead of using statutory
long-term plans, uses planning laws and rules referring
to qualitative relations between different activities and
factors within a system91. Contrarily to traditional practices,
this approach does not try to anticipate every possible
situation, and there are no ‘future complete pictures’ to be
accomplished91.
Originally discussed in the context of urban
planning91, the potential of just-in-time planning
for MSP was already highlighted in the scientific
literature21.
Table 1 | Pathways to support the inclusion of climate change in MSP (Continued)
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain
Review ARticle NaTure SuSTaiNaBiliTy
ocean governance—and MSP processes can be pivotal. Different
areas of the world, experiencing different social-ecological realities,
will require different solutions to both integrate climate impacts in
MSP and ensure dynamic solutions.
This Review assembles some key ideas and guidelines towards
climate readiness. Similar to other natural resource management
areas such as agriculture or biodiversity conservation101,102, MSP
must become ‘climate-ready’. The first step is to build evidence at
multiple scales on the pathways through which climate impacts on
marine social-ecological systems will challenge ocean planning.
Identifying in advance potential places in which human activities
and infrastructure are more vulnerable and exposed to climate
impacts is key to target proper climate adaptation actions. It is
also vital to recognize the differences among human communities’
capacity to cope, respond or adapt to climate challenges103, and that
such differences will affect the ability to achieve an equitable, inclu-
sive and sustainable use of the ocean17.
Second, we need to better understand the robustness of differ-
ent management approaches under climate uncertainty48,101, par-
ticularly their ability to transform, adapt and integrate change65,104.
Table 1 provides a glimpse on ‘what works where’ so far, but as MSP
continues to spread globally, countries with ongoing initiatives must
evaluate which dynamic solutions suit them better and why. MSP
must be flexible while simultaneously providing predictability and
stability for ocean users. A growing body of literature on adaptive
law and governance65,68,99,104–106 addresses these issues (together with
broader legal impediments to effective ocean management) and can
provide pathways to support dynamic MSP solutions (for example,
overcoming legal obstacles to integrating dynamic and adaptive
management in planning). It is also critical to deepen the analysis on
adaptive governance68,104 and understand the key social-ecological
relationships on which it depends (despite existing examples on sea
basin scales105, sector approaches106 or the contribution of a specific
component99, a common vision to guide action remains to be estab-
lished). Alongside, a regular revision mechanism (for marine spa-
tial plans and MSP policies)19–21 coupled with a robust monitoring
framework56,107 would help countries ensure their plans are effective,
feasible and relevant56, and allow them to put into practice the pre-
cautionary principle—a cornerstone of MSP—in order to adapt to
changing conditions58,108.
Third, the implementation of global ocean sustainability goals
requires the effective coordination of different policy arenas34,101.
So far there is a lack of mutual recognition between MSP policies
and climate policies. The need to combat climate impacts is far
from being sufficiently imprinted in national and regional MSP
policies (for example, see the EU Directive on MSP58 in Table 1).
Conversely, marine planning (and broader ocean governance) is
largely absent from climate adaptation strategies, plans or pro-
grammes of action109,110. These tend to just mention fisheries, bio-
diversity conservation or coastal areas109,110. This misalignment
between policies makes it more difficult to ensure that climate
change is integrated as a relevant factor in MSP processes. Mutual
recognition between climate and MSP frameworks must be pur-
sued by policymakers.
MSP has a real chance to contribute to sustainable ocean use, but
to do so effectively it must be prepared for the challenges ahead—a
changing ocean being a vital one14. There is a growing recognition
that ocean resilience is in peril, and that international and national
action is needed to address climate change before it is too late24,26
for our ocean, our planet and humankind. We need to reframe our
approach along the above-mentioned lines, and take action accord-
ingly, to effectively develop climate-ready MSP—that way contrib-
uting to support sustainable ocean-based solutions57.
Received: 13 September 2018; Accepted: 13 March 2020;
Published: xx xx xxxx
References
1. Transforming Our World: e 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
(UN, 2015).
2. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UN, 1982).
3. Rilov, G. etal. A fast-moving target: achieving marine conservation goals
under shiing climate and policies. Ecol. Appl. 30, e02009 (2020).
4. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UN, 1992).
5. Kirkfeldt, T. S. An ocean of concepts: why choosing between
ecosystem-based management, ecosystem-based approach and ecosystem
approach makes a dierence. Mar. Policy. 106, 103541 (2019).
6. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992 – Agenda 21 (UN, 1992).
7. Frazão Santos, C. etal. in World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation, Volume
III: Ecological Issues and Environmental Impacts 2nd edn (ed. Sheppard, C.)
Ch. 30 (Academic Press, 2019).
8. Ehler, C. & Douvere, F. Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-By-Step Approach
Toward Ecosystem-Based Management (UNESCO, 2009).
9. Agardy, T. Ocean Zoning: Making Marine Management More Eective
(Earthscan, 2010).
10. Soininen, N. & Hassan, D. in Transboundary Marine Spatial Planning and
International Law (eds Hassan, D., Kuokkanen, T. & Sioninen, N.) Ch. 1
(Taylor & Francis Group, 2015).
11. e 2nd International Conference on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning,
15–17 March 2017, UNESCO, Paris, Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission and European Commission (UNESCO, 2017).
12. Ehler, C. in Arctic Marine Governance (eds Tedsen, E., Cavalieri, S. &
Kraemer, R. A.) Ch. 9 (Springer, 2014).
13. Wright, G. etal. Marine spatial planning in areas beyond national
jurisdiction. Mar. Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.12.003 (2019).
14. Frazão Santos, C. etal. Major challenges in developing marine spatial
planning. Mar. Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.032 (2018).
15. Kyriazi, Z., Maes, F., Rabaut, M., Vincx, M. & Degraer, S. e integration of
nature conservation into the marine spatial planning process. Mar. Polic y
38, 133–139 (2013).
16. Qiu, W. F. & Jones, P. J. S. e emerging policy landscape for marine spatial
planning in Europe. Mar. Policy 39, 182–190 (2013).
17. Bennett, N. J. Navigating a just and inclusive path towards sustainable
oceans. Mar. Policy 97, 139–146 (2018).
18. Grimmel, H., Calado, H., Fonseca, C. & Suárez de Vivero, J. L. Integration
of the social dimension into marine spatial planning – eoretical aspects
and recommendations. Ocean Coast. Manage. 173, 139–147 (2019).
19. Halpern, B. S. etal. Near-term priorities for the science, policy and
practice of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP). Mar. Policy 36,
198–205 (2012).
20. Gissi, E., Fraschetti, S. & Micheli, F. Incorporating change in marine spatial
planning: a review. Environ. Sci. Policy 92, 191–200 (2019).
21. Frazão Santos, C. etal. Ocean planning in a changing climate. Nat. Geosci.
9, 730 (2016).
22. Steen, W. etal. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a
changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).
23. Nash, K. L. etal. Planetary boundaries for a blue planet. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1,
1625–1634 (2017).
24. Lenton, T. M. etal. Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against.
Nature 575, 592–595 (2019).
25. Rogelj, J. etal. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep
warming well below 2 degrees C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016).
26. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V.
etal) (WMO, 2018).
27. Lawrence, M. G. & Schäfer, S. Promises and perils of the Paris Agreement.
Science 364, 829–830 (2019).
28. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate
(IPCC, 2019).
29. Cheng, L. J., Abraham, J., Hausfather, Z. & Trenberth, K. E. How fast are
the oceans warming? Science 363, 128–129 (2019).
30. Pinsky, M. L., Eikeset, A. M., McCauley, D. J., Payne, J. L. & Sunday, J. M.
Greater vulnerability to warming of marine versus terrestrial ectotherms.
Nature 569, 108–111 (2019).
31. Pecl, G. T. etal. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts
on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214 (2017).
32. Craig, R. K. Ocean governance for the 21st century: making marine zoning
climate change adaptable. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 36, 305–350 (2012).
33. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (UNDESA, 2019).
34. Liu, J. G. etal. Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat.
Sustain. 1, 466–476 (2018).
35. Visbeck, M. Ocean science research is key for a sustainable future. Nat.
Commun. 9, 690 (2018).
36. e Science We Need for the Ocean We Want (UNESCO, 2018).
37. Mooney, H. etal. Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services. Cu rr.
Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1, 46–54 (2009).
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain
Review ARticle
NaTure SuSTaiNaBiliTy
38. Gattuso, J. P. etal. Contrasting futures for ocean and society from dierent
anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios. Science 349, aac4722 (2015).
39. Bruno, J. F. etal. Climate change threatens the world’s marine protected
areas. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 499–503 (2018).
40. Heij, C. & Knapp, S. Eects of wind strength and wave height on ship
incident risk: regional trends and seasonality. Transp. Res. D 37, 29–39 (2015).
41. Pryor, S. C. & Barthelmie, R. J. Climate change impacts on wind energy: a
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 430–437 (2010).
42. Barange, M. etal. Impacts of climate change on marine ecosystem
production in societies dependent on sheries. Nat. Clim. Change 4,
211–216 (2014).
43. Pinsky, M. L. etal. Preparing ocean governance for species on the move.
Science 360, 1189–1191 (2018).
44. Maxwell, S. M. etal. Dynamic ocean management: dening and
conceptualizing real-time management of the ocean. Mar. Policy 58,
42–50 (2015).
45. Smith, L. C. & Stephenson, S. R. New Trans-Arctic shipping routes navigable
by midcentury. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E1191–E1195 (2013).
46. Sardain, A., Sardain, E. & Leung, B. Global forecasts of shipping trac and
biological invasions to 2050. Nat. Sustain. 2, 274–282 (2019).
47. Edwards, R. & Evans, A. e challenges of marine spatial planning in the
Arctic: results from the ACCESS programme. Ambio 46, 486–496 (2017).
48. Halpern, B. S. etal. Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s
ocean. Sci. Rep. 9, 11609 (2019).
49. Tollefson, J. One million species face extinction. Nature 569, 171 (2019).
50. Hoel, A. H. & Olsen, E. Integrated ocean management as a strategy to meet
rapid climate change: the Norwegian case. Ambio 41, 85–95 (2012).
51. Eh ler, C. Coral Triangle Initiative: An Introduction to Marine Spatial
Planning (CTI-CFF, 2013).
52. Schaefer, N. & Barale, V. Maritime spatial planning: opportunities and
challenges in the framework of the EU integrated maritime policy. J. Coast.
Conserv. 15, 237–245 (2011).
53. Sale, P. F. etal. Transforming management of tropical coastal seas to cope
with challenges of the 21st century. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 85, 8–23 (2014).
54. McLeod, E. etal. e future of resilience-based management in coral reef
ecosystems. J. Environ. Manage. 233, 291–301 (2019).
55. Hughes, T. P. etal. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals.
Nature 543, 373–377 (2017).
56. Eh ler, C. A Guide to Evaluating Marine Spatial Plans (UNESCO, 2014).
57. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. etal. e Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five
Opportunities for Action (World Resources Institute, 2019).
58. Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
July 2014, Establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning (EU, 2014).
59. Young, M. Building the blue economy: the role of marine spatial planning
in facilitating oshore renewable energy development. Int. J. Mar. Coast.
Law 30, 148–174 (2015).
60. Macreadie, P. I. etal. e future of Blue Carbon science. Nat. Commun. 10,
3998 (2019).
61. Johansson, L., Jalkanen, J.-P. & Kukkonen, J. Global assessment of shipping
emissions in 2015 on a high spatial and temporal resolution. Atmos.
Environ. 167, 403–415 (2017).
62. Gossling, S. Global environmental consequences of tourism. Glob. Environ.
Change 12, 283–302 (2002).
63. Okey, T. A., Alidina, H. M., Lo, V. & Jessen, S. Eects of climate change on
Canada’s Pacic marine ecosystems: a summary of scientic knowledge.
Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher. 24, 519–559 (2014).
64. McHenry, J., Steneck, R. S. & Brady, D. C. Abiotic proxies for predictive
mapping of nearshore benthic assemblages: implications for marine spatial
planning. Ecol. Appl. 27, 603–618 (2017).
65. Tittensor, D. P. etal. Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity
conservation in the global ocean. Sci. Adv. 5, eaay9969 (2019).
66. Gilliland, P. M. & Laoley, D. Key elements and steps in the process of
developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 32,
787–796 (2008).
67. Pınarbaşı, K. etal. Decision support tools in marine spatial planning:
present applications, gaps and future perspectives. Mar. Policy 83,
83–91 (2017).
68. Kelly, C., Ellis, G. & Flannery, W. Conceptualising change in marine
governance: learning from transition management. Mar. Policy 95,
24–35 (2018).
69. Loorbach, D. & Rotmans, J. e practice of transition management:
examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures 42, 237–246 (2010).
70. Lukic, I. etal. Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) for Blue Growth: Final
Technical Study (EU, 2018).
71. Zaucha, J. & Gee, K. Marine Spatial Planning: Past, Present, Future (Palgrave
MacMillan, 2019).
72. Lukic, I., Schultz-Zehden, A. & de Grunt, L. S. Handbook for developing
visions in MSP. Technical Study under the Assistance Mechanism for the
Implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning (EU, 2018).
73. Mullon, C. etal. Quantitative pathways for Northeast Atlantic sheries
based on climate, ecological–economic and governance modelling
scenarios. Ecol. Model. 320, 273–291 (2016).
74. Hammar, L. etal. Symphony: An Integrated Support Tool for Ecosystem
Based Marine Spatial Planning (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water
Management, 2018).
75. Verutes, G. M. etal. Integrated planning that safeguards ecosystems and
balances multiple objectives in coastal Belize. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst.
Serv. Manage. 13, 1–17 (2017).
76. Agostini, V. N. etal. Marine zoning in St. Kitts and Nevis: a design for
sustainable management in the Caribbean. Ocean Coast. Manage. 104,
1–10 (2015).
77. Gissi, E. etal. Addressing transboundary conservation challenges through
marine spatial prioritization. Conserv. Biol. 32, 1107–1117 (2018).
78. Allnutt, T. F. etal. Comparison of marine spatial planning methods in
Madagascar demonstrates value of alternative approaches. PLoS ONE 7,
e28969 (2012).
79. Pınarbaşı, K. etal. A modelling approach for oshore wind farm feasibility
with respect to ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Sci. Total Environ.
667, 306–317 (2019).
80. Froehlich, H. E., Gentry, R. R. & Halpern, B. S. Global change in marine
aquaculture production potential under climate change. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2,
1745–1750 (2018).
81. Gormley, K. S. G., Hull, A. D., Porter, J. S., Bell, M. C. & Sanderson, W. G.
Adaptive management, international co-operation and planning for marine
conservation hotspots in a changing climate. Mar. Policy 53, 54–66 (2015).
82. Hazen, E. L. etal. Predicted habitat shis of Pacic top predators in a
changing climate. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 234–238 (2013).
83. Queirós, A. M. etal. Solutions for ecosystem-level protection of ocean
systems under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3927–3936 (2016).
84. Janβen, H. etal. Integration of sheries into marine spatial planning: Quo
vadis? Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 201, 105–113 (2018).
85. Davies, H. N. etal. Integrating climate change resilience features into
the incremental renement of an existing marine park. PLoS ONE 11,
e0161094 (2016).
86. Bethoney, N. D., Zhao, L. Z., Chen, C. S. & Stokesbury, K. D. E.
Identication of persistent benthic assemblages in areas with dierent
temperature variability patterns through broad-scale mapping. PLoS ONE
12, e0177333 (2017).
87. O’Neill, B. C. etal. IPCC reasons for concern regarding climate change
risks. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 28–37 (2017).
88. Oppenheimer, M. etal. in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. etal.) Ch. 19 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
89. Khan, A. & Amelie, V. Assessing climate change readiness in Seychelles:
implications for ecosystem-based adaptation mainstreaming and marine
spatial planning. Reg. Environ. Change 15, 721–733 (2015).
90. Brugére, C. & Young, C. D. Assessing Climate Change Vulnerability in
Fisheries and Aquaculture: Available Methodologies and their Relevance for
the Sector (FAO, 2015).
91. Alfasi, N. & Portugali, J. Planning just-in-time versus planning just-in-case.
Cities 21, 29–39 (2004).
92. Lubchenco, J., Cerny-Chipman, E. B., Reimer, J. N. & Levin, S. A. e right
incentives enable ocean sustainability successes and provide hope for the
future. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 14507–14514 (2016).
93. Dunn, D. C., Maxwell, S. M., Boustany, A. M. & Halpin, P. N. Dynamic
ocean management increases the eciency and ecacy of sheries
management. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 668–673 (2016).
94. Hazen, E. L. etal. A dynamic ocean management tool to reduce bycatch
and support sustainable sheries. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar3001 (2018).
95. Coleman, M. A. etal. Anticipating changes to future connectivity
within a network of marine protected areas. Glob. Change Biol. 23,
3533–3542 (2017).
96. Craig, R. K., Ruhl, J. B., Brown, E. D. & Williams, B. K. A proposal for
amending administrative law to facilitate adaptive management. Environ.
Res. Lett. 12, 074018 (2017).
97. Williams, B. K. & Brown, E. D. Adaptive management: from more talk to
real action. Environ. Manage. 53, 465–479 (2014).
98. Carneiro, G. Evaluation of marine spatial planning. Mar. Polic y 37,
214–229 (2013).
99. Cosens, B. A. etal. e role of law in adaptive governance. Ecol. Soc.
22, 30 (2017).
100. Sivas, D. & Caldwell, M. R. A new vision for California ocean governance:
comprehensive ecosystem-based marine zoning. Stanf. Environ. Law J. 27,
209–270 (2008).
101. Lipper, L. etal. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim.
Change 4, 1068–1072 (2014).
102. Stein, B. A. etal. Preparing for and managing change: climate
adaptation for biodiversity and ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11,
502–510 (2013).
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain
Review ARticle NaTure SuSTaiNaBiliTy
103. Cinner, J. E. etal. Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical
coastal communities. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 117–123 (2018).
104. Kelly, C., Ellis, G. & Flannery, W. Unravelling persistent problems to
transformative marine governance. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 213 (2019).
105. Österblom, H. & Folke, C. Emergence of global adaptive governance for
stewardship of regional marine resources. Ecol. Soc. 18, 4 (2013).
106. Valman, M., Österblom, H. & Olsson, P. Adaptive governance of the Baltic
Sea – lessons from elsewhere. Int. J. Commons 9, 440–465 (2015).
107. Douvere, F. & Ehler, C. e importance of monitoring and evaluation in
adaptive maritime spatial planning. J. Coast. Conserv. 15, 305–311 (2011).
108. Gissi, E. etal. Addressing uncertainty in modelling cumulative impacts
within maritime spatial planning in the Adriatic and Ionian region. PLoS
ONE 12, e0180501 (2017).
109. National Adaptation Policy Processes in European Countries—2014
(EEA, 2014).
110. Biesbroek, G. R. etal. Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national
adaptation strategies. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 440–450 (2010).
111. Littaye, A., Lardon, S. & Alloncle, N. Stakeholders’ collective drawing
reveals signicant dierences in the vision of marine spatial planning of the
western tropical Pacic. Ocean Coast. Manage. 130, 260–276 (2016).
112. iault, L. etal. Space and time matter in social-ecological vulnerability
assessments. Mar. Policy 88, 213–221 (2018).
113. Wyatt, K. H. etal. Habitat risk assessment for regional ocean planning in
the U.S. Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. PLoS ONE 12, e0188776 (2017).
114. Willaert, T., García-Alegre, A., Queiroga, H., Cunha-e-Sá, M. A. & Lillebø,
A. Measuring vulnerability of marine and coastal habitats’ potential to
deliver ecosystem services: complex Atlantic region as case study. Front.
Mar. Sci. 6, 199 (2019).
115. Frazão Santos, C. etal. An index to assess the vulnerability of ocean
planning and the Blue Economy to global climate change. In e Eects of
Climate Change on the World’s Oceans–Book of Abstracts. Proc. 4th
International Symposium 157 (PICES Secretariat, 2018); https://go.nature.
com/39Z5iE8
116. Hobday, A. J., Hartog, J. R., Timmiss, T. & Fielding, J. Dynamic spatial
zoning to manage southern bluen tuna (unnus maccoyii) capture in a
multi-species longline shery. Fish. Oceanogr. 19, 243–253 (2010).
117. Davies, K. T. A. & Brillant, S. W. Mass human-caused mortality spurs
federal action to protect endangered North Atlantic right whales in Canada.
Mar. Policy 104, 157–162 (2019).
118. Maxwell, S. M., Gjerde, K. M., Conners, M. G. & Crowder, L. B. Mobile
protected areas for biodiversity on the high seas. Science 367, 252–254 (2020).
119. Crowder, L. & Norse, E. Essential ecological insights for marine
ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 32,
772–778 (2008).
120. Foley, M. M. etal. Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial
planning. Mar. Policy 34, 955–966 (2010).
121. Marine Spatial Planning in the Context of the Convention on Biological
Diversity: A Study Carried out in Response to CBD COP 10 Decision X/29
(SCBD, 2012).
122. Spalding, M. D. etal. Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization
of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience 57, 573–583 (2007).
123. Katsanevakis, S. etal. Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: review
of concepts, policies, tools, and critical issues. Ocean Coast. Manage. 54,
807–820 (2011).
124. Ehler, C. 13 Myths of Marine Spatial Planning (Marine Ecosystems and
Management, 2012).
125. Kerr, S., Johnson, K. & Side, J. C. Planning at the edge: integrating across
the land sea divide. Mar. Policy 47, 118–125 (2014).
Acknowledgements
This research is part of project OCEANPLAN (Marine Spatial Planning under
a Changing Climate; www.oceanplan-project.com) funded by the Portuguese
Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under grant agreement PTDC/
CTA-AMB/30226/2017. C.F.S. acknowledges funding from programme MAR2020
(MAR-01.04.02-FEAMP-0007) and the strategic project granted to MARE (UID/
MAR/04292/2013). We would like to thank M. Barange for early discussions on the
nexus between MSP and climate change (that led to many ideas discussed in the Review),
to J. Pålsson for information on the Sweden case study, and to C. P. Santos and N.
Queiróz for information used to produce maps. A deep acknowledgement to visual artist
B. Kohler (www.baskohler.nl) for creating the original cartoon presented in Fig. 4 (a
crowded ocean under a changing climate).
Author contributions
C.F.S. and R.R. designed the study. C.F.S. developed the first draft of the manuscript.
T.A., F.A., H.C., L.B.C., C.N.E., S.G.-M., E.G., B.S.H., M.K.O., H.-O.P. and R.R.
commented on initial drafts, and all authors contributed to the final version of the
Review article.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information is available for this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41893-020-0513-x.
Correspondence should be addressed to C.F.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
© Springer Nature Limited 2020
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain
