Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Integrating climate change in ocean planning

Abstract

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 integration of climate impacts in MSP.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Global status of MSP development in 2019.
Fig. 2: Overview of climate change and MSP literature.
Fig. 3: Conceptual model of the nexus among MSP, climate change and ocean sustainability, and direct relationships to UN SDGs.
Fig. 4: A crowded ocean under a changing climate.

References

  1. 1.

    Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015).

  2. 2.

    United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UN, 1982).

  3. 3.

    Rilov, G. et al. A fast-moving target: achieving marine conservation goals under shifting climate and policies. Ecol. Appl. 30, e02009 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UN, 1992).

  5. 5.

    Kirkfeldt, T. S. An ocean of concepts: why choosing between ecosystem-based management, ecosystem-based approach and ecosystem approach makes a difference. Mar. Policy. 106, 103541 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    United Nations Conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992 – Agenda 21 (UN, 1992).

  7. 7.

    Frazão Santos, C. et al. in World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation, Volume III: Ecological Issues and Environmental Impacts 2nd edn (ed. Sheppard, C.) Ch. 30 (Academic Press, 2019).

  8. 8.

    Ehler, C. & Douvere, F. Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-By-Step Approach Toward Ecosystem-Based Management (UNESCO, 2009).

  9. 9.

    Agardy, T. Ocean Zoning: Making Marine Management More Effective (Earthscan, 2010).

  10. 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. 11.

    The 2nd International Conference on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning, 15–17 March 2017, UNESCO, Paris, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and European Commission (UNESCO, 2017).

  12. 12.

    Ehler, C. in Arctic Marine Governance (eds Tedsen, E., Cavalieri, S. & Kraemer, R. A.) Ch. 9 (Springer, 2014).

  13. 13.

    Wright, G. et al. Marine spatial planning in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Mar. Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.12.003 (2019).

  14. 14.

    Frazão Santos, C. et al. Major challenges in developing marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.032 (2018).

  15. 15.

    Kyriazi, Z., Maes, F., Rabaut, M., Vincx, M. & Degraer, S. The integration of nature conservation into the marine spatial planning process. Mar. Policy 38, 133–139 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Qiu, W. F. & Jones, P. J. S. The emerging policy landscape for marine spatial planning in Europe. Mar. Policy 39, 182–190 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Bennett, N. J. Navigating a just and inclusive path towards sustainable oceans. Mar. Policy 97, 139–146 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Grimmel, H., Calado, H., Fonseca, C. & Suárez de Vivero, J. L. Integration of the social dimension into marine spatial planning – Theoretical aspects and recommendations. Ocean Coast. Manage. 173, 139–147 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Halpern, B. S. et al. Near-term priorities for the science, policy and practice of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP). Mar. Policy 36, 198–205 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gissi, E., Fraschetti, S. & Micheli, F. Incorporating change in marine spatial planning: a review. Environ. Sci. Policy 92, 191–200 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Frazão Santos, C. et al. Ocean planning in a changing climate. Nat. Geosci. 9, 730 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Nash, K. L. et al. Planetary boundaries for a blue planet. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1625–1634 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lenton, T. M. et al. Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against. Nature 575, 592–595 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 degrees C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al) (WMO, 2018).

  27. 27.

    Lawrence, M. G. & Schäfer, S. Promises and perils of the Paris Agreement. Science 364, 829–830 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (IPCC, 2019).

  29. 29.

    Cheng, L. J., Abraham, J., Hausfather, Z. & Trenberth, K. E. How fast are the oceans warming? Science 363, 128–129 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 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).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Craig, R. K. Ocean governance for the 21st century: making marine zoning climate change adaptable. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 36, 305–350 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (UNDESA, 2019).

  34. 34.

    Liu, J. G. et al. Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 1, 466–476 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Visbeck, M. Ocean science research is key for a sustainable future. Nat. Commun. 9, 690 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    The Science We Need for the Ocean We Want (UNESCO, 2018).

  37. 37.

    Mooney, H. et al. Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1, 46–54 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Gattuso, J. P. et al. Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios. Science 349, aac4722 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Bruno, J. F. et al. Climate change threatens the world’s marine protected areas. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 499–503 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Heij, C. & Knapp, S. Effects of wind strength and wave height on ship incident risk: regional trends and seasonality. Transp. Res. D 37, 29–39 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Pryor, S. C. & Barthelmie, R. J. Climate change impacts on wind energy: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 430–437 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Barange, M. et al. Impacts of climate change on marine ecosystem production in societies dependent on fisheries. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 211–216 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Pinsky, M. L. et al. Preparing ocean governance for species on the move. Science 360, 1189–1191 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Maxwell, S. M. et al. Dynamic ocean management: defining and conceptualizing real-time management of the ocean. Mar. Policy 58, 42–50 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Smith, L. C. & Stephenson, S. R. New Trans-Arctic shipping routes navigable by midcentury. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E1191–E1195 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Sardain, A., Sardain, E. & Leung, B. Global forecasts of shipping traffic and biological invasions to 2050. Nat. Sustain. 2, 274–282 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Edwards, R. & Evans, A. The challenges of marine spatial planning in the Arctic: results from the ACCESS programme. Ambio 46, 486–496 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Halpern, B. S. et al. Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s ocean. Sci. Rep. 9, 11609 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Tollefson, J. One million species face extinction. Nature 569, 171 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Ehler, C. Coral Triangle Initiative: An Introduction to Marine Spatial Planning (CTI-CFF, 2013).

  52. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Sale, P. F. et al. Transforming management of tropical coastal seas to cope with challenges of the 21st century. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 85, 8–23 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    McLeod, E. et al. The future of resilience-based management in coral reef ecosystems. J. Environ. Manage. 233, 291–301 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543, 373–377 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Ehler, C. A Guide to Evaluating Marine Spatial Plans (UNESCO, 2014).

  57. 57.

    Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action (World Resources Institute, 2019).

  58. 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. 59.

    Young, M. Building the blue economy: the role of marine spatial planning in facilitating offshore renewable energy development. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 30, 148–174 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Macreadie, P. I. et al. The future of Blue Carbon science. Nat. Commun. 10, 3998 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 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).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Gossling, S. Global environmental consequences of tourism. Glob. Environ. Change 12, 283–302 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Okey, T. A., Alidina, H. M., Lo, V. & Jessen, S. Effects of climate change on Canada’s Pacific marine ecosystems: a summary of scientific knowledge. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher. 24, 519–559 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Tittensor, D. P. et al. Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation in the global ocean. Sci. Adv. 5, eaay9969 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Gilliland, P. M. & Laffoley, D. Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 32, 787–796 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Pınarbaşı, K. et al. Decision support tools in marine spatial planning: present applications, gaps and future perspectives. Mar. Policy 83, 83–91 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Kelly, C., Ellis, G. & Flannery, W. Conceptualising change in marine governance: learning from transition management. Mar. Policy 95, 24–35 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Loorbach, D. & Rotmans, J. The practice of transition management: examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures 42, 237–246 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Lukic, I. et al. Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) for Blue Growth: Final Technical Study (EU, 2018).

  71. 71.

    Zaucha, J. & Gee, K. Marine Spatial Planning: Past, Present, Future (Palgrave MacMillan, 2019).

  72. 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. 73.

    Mullon, C. et al. Quantitative pathways for Northeast Atlantic fisheries based on climate, ecological–economic and governance modelling scenarios. Ecol. Model. 320, 273–291 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Hammar, L. et al. Symphony: An Integrated Support Tool for Ecosystem Based Marine Spatial Planning (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, 2018).

  75. 75.

    Verutes, G. M. et al. Integrated planning that safeguards ecosystems and balances multiple objectives in coastal Belize. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage. 13, 1–17 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Agostini, V. N. et al. Marine zoning in St. Kitts and Nevis: a design for sustainable management in the Caribbean. Ocean Coast. Manage. 104, 1–10 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Gissi, E. et al. Addressing transboundary conservation challenges through marine spatial prioritization. Conserv. Biol. 32, 1107–1117 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Allnutt, T. F. et al. Comparison of marine spatial planning methods in Madagascar demonstrates value of alternative approaches. PLoS ONE 7, e28969 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Pınarbaşı, K. et al. A modelling approach for offshore wind farm feasibility with respect to ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Sci. Total Environ. 667, 306–317 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  80. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  81. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Hazen, E. L. et al. Predicted habitat shifts of Pacific top predators in a changing climate. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 234–238 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Queirós, A. M. et al. Solutions for ecosystem-level protection of ocean systems under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3927–3936 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Janβen, H. et al. Integration of fisheries into marine spatial planning: Quo vadis? Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 201, 105–113 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Davies, H. N. et al. Integrating climate change resilience features into the incremental refinement of an existing marine park. PLoS ONE 11, e0161094 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Bethoney, N. D., Zhao, L. Z., Chen, C. S. & Stokesbury, K. D. E. Identification of persistent benthic assemblages in areas with different temperature variability patterns through broad-scale mapping. PLoS ONE 12, e0177333 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    O’Neill, B. C. et al. IPCC reasons for concern regarding climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 28–37 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Oppenheimer, M. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) Ch. 19 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  89. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  90. 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. 91.

    Alfasi, N. & Portugali, J. Planning just-in-time versus planning just-in-case. Cities 21, 29–39 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Lubchenco, J., Cerny-Chipman, E. B., Reimer, J. N. & Levin, S. A. The right incentives enable ocean sustainability successes and provide hope for the future. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 14507–14514 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Dunn, D. C., Maxwell, S. M., Boustany, A. M. & Halpin, P. N. Dynamic ocean management increases the efficiency and efficacy of fisheries management. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 668–673 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Hazen, E. L. et al. A dynamic ocean management tool to reduce bycatch and support sustainable fisheries. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar3001 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Coleman, M. A. et al. Anticipating changes to future connectivity within a network of marine protected areas. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3533–3542 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  96. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Williams, B. K. & Brown, E. D. Adaptive management: from more talk to real action. Environ. Manage. 53, 465–479 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Carneiro, G. Evaluation of marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 37, 214–229 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Cosens, B. A. et al. The role of law in adaptive governance. Ecol. Soc. 22, 30 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  100. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Lipper, L. et al. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 1068–1072 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Stein, B. A. et al. Preparing for and managing change: climate adaptation for biodiversity and ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 502–510 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Cinner, J. E. et al. Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 117–123 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Kelly, C., Ellis, G. & Flannery, W. Unravelling persistent problems to transformative marine governance. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 213 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Österblom, H. & Folke, C. Emergence of global adaptive governance for stewardship of regional marine resources. Ecol. Soc. 18, 4 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Valman, M., Österblom, H. & Olsson, P. Adaptive governance of the Baltic Sea – lessons from elsewhere. Int. J. Commons 9, 440–465 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Douvere, F. & Ehler, C. The importance of monitoring and evaluation in adaptive maritime spatial planning. J. Coast. Conserv. 15, 305–311 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Gissi, E. et al. Addressing uncertainty in modelling cumulative impacts within maritime spatial planning in the Adriatic and Ionian region. PLoS ONE 12, e0180501 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    National Adaptation Policy Processes in European Countries—2014 (EEA, 2014).

  110. 110.

    Biesbroek, G. R. et al. Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 440–450 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Littaye, A., Lardon, S. & Alloncle, N. Stakeholders’ collective drawing reveals significant differences in the vision of marine spatial planning of the western tropical Pacific. Ocean Coast. Manage. 130, 260–276 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Thiault, L. et al. Space and time matter in social-ecological vulnerability assessments. Mar. Policy 88, 213–221 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Wyatt, K. H. et al. Habitat risk assessment for regional ocean planning in the U.S. Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. PLoS ONE 12, e0188776 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  114. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Frazão Santos, C. et al. An index to assess the vulnerability of ocean planning and the Blue Economy to global climate change. In The Effects 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. 116.

    Hobday, A. J., Hartog, J. R., Timmiss, T. & Fielding, J. Dynamic spatial zoning to manage southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) capture in a multi-species longline fishery. Fish. Oceanogr. 19, 243–253 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  117. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  118. 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).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Crowder, L. & Norse, E. Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 32, 772–778 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Foley, M. M. et al. Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 34, 955–966 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  121. 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. 122.

    Spalding, M. D. et al. Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience 57, 573–583 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Katsanevakis, S. et al. Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: review of concepts, policies, tools, and critical issues. Ocean Coast. Manage. 54, 807–820 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Ehler, C. 13 Myths of Marine Spatial Planning (Marine Ecosystems and Management, 2012).

  125. 125.

    Kerr, S., Johnson, K. & Side, J. C. Planning at the edge: integrating across the land sea divide. Mar. Policy 47, 118–125 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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 information

Affiliations

Authors

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catarina Frazão Santos.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Tables 1–5, Figs. 1 and 2, and references.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frazão Santos, C., Agardy, T., Andrade, F. et al. Integrating climate change in ocean planning. Nat Sustain 3, 505–516 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0513-x

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing