Abstract
Marine spatial planning (MSP) has emerged as a tool to enable marine ecosystem-based management that seeks to balance human demands for ocean space with environmental protection. However, there is a history of thinking about our ocean systems as spaces, not places. As a result, most MSPs have been implemented without consideration of place. The relationship between people and the rest of nature is at the core of the UN SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals). Due to significant knowledge gaps in sociocultural connections, people and their place-based perspectives and needs are often overlooked in the MSP process. New approaches are required to equip societies with information to inform sustainable ocean planning relevant to environmental change and the local sociocultural context. We encourage the inclusion of a distinct place-based characteristic in MSP and argue that bringing in the concepts of space and place from the discipline of geography can enable a broader view of the seascape in MSP. Here, we provide five core considerations of place-based MSP that include: (1) sense of place; (2) social-ecological systems; (3) ocean and human health; (4) multiple ways of knowing; and (5) social knowledge. We review available methods and suggest a multi-evidence-based approach that can highlight dynamic eco-cultural connections between people and the biophysical patterns and processes of interlinked landscapes and seascapes. Moving towards place-based MSP can help to solve three important issues in the current context of global socio-environmental transformations. First, these key concepts are relevant for interdisciplinary science, as solving problems raised by MSP requires more than superimposing spatial layers of scientific knowledge. Second, marine planning and management is less efficient if policies are not integrated and if issues are addressed by each individual sector rather than in a holistic manner. Third, a place-based approach accounts for individual and collective values and may open new ways to solve governance issues. A shift from understanding and managing ocean spaces to including ocean places can support progress towards sustainable and equitable MSP goals.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
A healthy ocean supports human well-being, regulates global climate, sustains a range of biodiversity, and delivers other benefits to people and the planet1,2. Multiple competing societal, environmental, and economic interests have arisen that highlight the ocean as a highly contested space, presenting a major challenge for the sustainable and equitable management of marine resources3,4. Ecosystem-based management was established using mainly ecological criteria to mitigate ocean decline and enhance its capacity to support human livelihoods5. The argument that the natural environment should be managed as an integrated landscape unit through an ecosystem-based management approach gained momentum on land6 and was later fostered in the marine environment7,8. In the next decade, there was a growing shift towards integrating social considerations into ecosystem-based management7, where a definition expanded in 2005 to encompass the entire ecosystem “including humans”9 aligned with Odum’s ecosystem concept that included people10. With ecosystem-based management as the basis, a new approach was emerging to guide ocean governance toward spatial management of marine ecosystems through comprehensive ocean zoning9,11. Novel geospatial tools and technology enabled spatially explicit analyses and evaluation of marine management scenarios that were not previously possible, ultimately enabling the advancement toward dynamic ocean management using spatial biophysical variables12,13,14.
Within a portfolio of comprehensive ocean planning strategies, marine spatial planning (MSP) has emerged as a tool to enable marine ecosystem-based management8. MSP has evolved to become an ecosystem-based planning process that aims to balance human demands for ocean space with environmental protection15,16. MSP focuses on identifying biophysical heterogeneity to enable the management of multiple objectives and users across the wider seascape, and this process is increasingly being considered essential for achieving ocean sustainability goals across a range of geopolitical scales (e.g., UN Sustainable Development Goal 14)15,17. MSP can mitigate conflict and ensure the delivery of benefits to ocean users by maintaining a healthy ocean during socioeconomic development18,19,20.
Although MSP has the goal of sustainable management of marine resources, there has been a lack of attention given to understanding the meaning of the ocean to people18,21 and instead, current practice tends to emphasize predominantly spatial information on economic, ecological, and administrative considerations22. This ‘spatial turn’ largely neglected the sociocultural seascape, compounded by inherent challenges in translating terrestrial approaches to marine systems23,24. Pioneering work by St. Martin and Hall-Arber24,25 first described place at sea within academia and was used as an example in the first UNESCO Guide to MSP26. While this useful work has not been repeated, there has been subsequent related development toward implementing place in MSP27,28. People live with(in) seascapes, forming intimate relationships tied to terrestrial communities. These relationships are connected to place through plural cultural, spiritual, and philosophical meanings29,30.
The relationship between people and the rest of nature is at the core of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, due to significant knowledge gaps in sociocultural connections, people and their place-based perspectives and needs are often overlooked in MSP31. Although significant advances have been made in quantifying and mapping biophysical aspects of marine ecosystems, the remaining challenge is to more fully incorporate diverse human cultural patterns and processes as key components within the ecological system4,32,33. This major knowledge gap hinders identifying and prioritizing sustainable MSP options and diminishes opportunities to mitigate and repair coupled human-natural ecosystems19. To forestall the widespread decline in coastal communities and the associated social and ecological consequences, it is critical for MSP to identify and characterize locations that represent both culturally and ecologically important pathways, places, and events in the coastal zone. New approaches must equip societies with information to inform sustainable MSP relevant to environmental change and the local cultural context18,34,35. We argue that bringing in the concepts of space and place from the discipline of geography36 can enable a broader view of the seascape in MSP.
In order to address this ontological and applied challenge in MSP, we suggest five core considerations of place-based MSP from the roots of systems ecology and human geography that include: (1) sense of place; (2) social-ecological systems; (3) ocean and human health; (4) multiple ways of knowing; and, (5) social knowledge (Table 1). We review available methods and suggest a multi-evidence-based approach that can highlight dynamic eco-cultural connections between people and the biophysical patterns and processes of interlinked landscapes and seascapes. By treating human spatial dynamics and perception of place at sea as an integral part of Earth’s living system rather than solely as drivers of system change, we explore the potential for a more holistic place-based science to inform MSP. We conclude by outlining how a further shift towards place-based MSP can help to solve three important issues in the current context of global socio-environmental transformations.
Sense of place
A place is a space with meaning—an incarnation of the experiences and aspirations of people36. The material environment forms ‘space’, within which lived relations, understandings, histories, and meanings of space form ‘place’36. Depictions of space can produce reality as much as represent it37,38,39. Place is particularly overlooked at sea, where depth and fluidity alter human relationships to the Earth’s surface, each other, and thus placemaking40. As a result, defining place within an oceanic context requires different understandings from terrestrial places41, compounded by designations, and ownership typically less codified or enforceable than on land42.
Cree geographer Michelle Daigle argues that more dialogue on the underpinnings of place is needed, where place is understood as an animate being43. For instance, in ancestors’ stories, place often has agency and speaks, creates, teaches, and is imbued with the life force of spirits that must be considered to understand the different ways of being in place44. Some peoples have maintained distinct systematic, localized, and place-based environmental knowledge over extended time periods45. For example, in traditional coastal Sámi communities, place names have provided the basis for transmitting cultural landscapes and seascapes through an oral mapping built around narratives and landmarks46. Such a view results in a markedly different cultural representation and perception of the seascape by highlighting not only place names but also the language and epistemology of unique cultures47.
UNESCO established guiding principles to move MSP towards ecosystem-based management, where they identified key components to enable effective MSP, including: (1) ecosystem-based, (2) integrated, (3) place-based or area-based, (4) adaptive, (5) strategic and anticipatory (hereafter, strategic), and (6) participatory26. Here, we re-consider the third characteristic of effective MSP (place-based or area-based) and suggest that ‘area-based’ encompasses the spatial area-based management of the ocean. We recommend a distinct place-based perspective in MSP and suggest that bringing in the concepts of space and place from the discipline of geography36 can enable a broader and more inclusive perspective in MSP.
Social-ecological systems
Seascapes are created through more than just overlapping subjective realities, as they include interconnected social and biophysical elements48. Complex relationships exist between the ocean and its users, and these connections are changing in response to various social, cultural, economic, political, and environmental factors22. Social-ecological systems describe intertwined sociocultural and biophysical actors and processes that influence each other49. Coastal people directly and indirectly create, modify, and respond to ecosystems at various scales within an adaptive social-ecological system. Equitable, holistic management of marine space relies on understanding coastal societies as situated within dynamic social-ecological systems50,51,52. While social-ecological system approaches have advanced our understanding of ecosystems, the models often neglect to consider feedbacks on key social phenomena that can form pivotal roles in system behavior.
To achieve this, MSP will require a transdisciplinary approach that considers interconnected social-ecological systems across land and sea boundaries from the coastal zone perspective15. In order to do so, it will be important to establish a wider lens through which we view the ocean, which includes both the biophysical seascape often mapped as a foundation for MSP processes, and the cultural seascape, which together form a social-ecological seascape (Fig. 1). The inclusion of cultural seascape variables enhance knowledge pluralism and are increasingly considered vital to explain the coupling processes between humans and other components of nature in social-ecological systems53. A shift to a pluralistic social-ecological systems approach must capture and track both dynamic relationships between components and emergent properties of the whole system (e.g., vulnerabilities, resilience, feedbacks)54,55 to inform a more holistic and place-based MSP process.
The integration of the cultural and biophysical seascape results in a broader understanding of the social-ecological system that can inform more inclusive, sustainable marine spatial planning.
Ocean and human health
More than 40% of the global human population lives within 100 km of the coast56, and the relationship between humans and the seascape has never been more tightly knit57. At the heart of complex marine social-ecological systems are the place-based connections between human health and ocean health15,58. Places with marine cultural value represent unique spatial patterns at sea31 and help identify human communities that rely on these coastal places for their health and well-being59, such as in Manquemapu, Chile where Mapuche-Huilliche nutrition, livelihoods, and spirituality are tied to marine places60. In coastal communities where people are closely connected to the ocean through observation and experiences, understanding the ecological system dynamics and cultural consequences is necessary to safeguard human and ecosystem health and develop effective MSP strategies. We know very little about the influence of coastal seascape spatial arrangement and dynamics (e.g., ecological connectivity) on the geography of physical and mental well-being, resilience to disturbance, identity, and the delivery and quality of ecosystem goods and services61.
MSP could better account for ecosystems’ mutual benefits and regulating mechanisms affecting people’s physical and emotional well-being. Reimagining place-based human-ocean relationships is needed to guide future MSP in informing how the mutual benefits of ocean health and related regulating mechanisms affect people’s physical and emotional well-being. Moving forward, it will be important for MSP to incorporate the complex eco-cultural relationships that connect human health and well-being to ocean health. It is ultimately the role of place in developing an ocean ethic62 that upholds a symbiotic relationship between humans and the ocean1. MSP can help by reducing conflict over contested spaces and resources by enabling safe and inclusive access to locally important coastal places to increase equitable distribution of benefits. Likewise, co-locating and sharing spaces for compatible ocean use could produce synergistic benefits for well-being. For instance, increased stewardship and backing for marine management efforts are often present in coastal communities that experience close connections to the ocean63,64,65,66. Integrating health and well-being within place-based MSP makes these contributions, and the ecosystem functions that underpin them, visible for MSP processes so they can be accounted for, sustained, and restored19.
As we consider ocean health and human health central to MSP, we can look to other fields to support this advancement. A growing body of research on mental health highlights the importance of blue spaces and biodiversity for well-being, with frameworks from environmental psychology contributing to understanding these complex relationships (e.g., refs. 67,68,69,70,71). For instance, Rainisio and Inghilleri72 highlight that environmental psychology provides insights into the nexus of culture, well-being, and environmental interactions. Further, Marsell et al.73 offer methods to assess how biodiversity changes influence human mental health, while relational therapy provides tools for mending the human-ocean relationship (e.g., refs. 74,75,76,77).
Multiple ways of knowing
The dominant scientific framework in which we study the ocean and our relations with it are profoundly rooted in Western scientific thinking (e.g., scientific and evidence-based, reductionist, often quantitative). Integrating different forms of knowledge in ecology is not new but has remained outside the conceptual scope for most applications of MSP. Increasingly, the benefits of knowledge pluralism are being recognized, whereby the input of personal and cultural information from individuals, groups, and communities, including traditional and local ecological knowledge, can broaden the understanding of social-ecological systems78 through the integration of multiple ways of knowing and doing62,79.
A blend of Western scientific methods, cultural values, a sense of place, and traditional and local knowledge systems can be beneficial80 to inform place-based MSP, as Fig. 2 outlines in relation to UNESCO’s step-by-step MSP guide26. Considering a range of different epistemologies within a project can build a more complete picture of the subject81. Multiple knowledge types are rarely interwoven into MSP, yet there are clear needs and increasing advantages to both scientists and stakeholder groups82,83,84 in building a wider ecological lens that includes a richer set of social epistemologies85,86. MSP initiatives should embrace a variety of epistemological worldviews to include multiple ways of knowing and doing when studying and making management decisions about the ocean (Fig. 2). Legal pluralism around the rights of nature may increasingly influence MSP and demand multiple ways of knowing and doing in MSP practice87,88.
Collective knowledge about the system can be obtained from a confluence of Western cognition, technological advances, indigenous science, and local knowledge through multiple ways of knowing and doing. The steps noted here refer to those of UNESCO’s step-by-step MSP guide26.
A Two-Eyed Seeing approach, originally Etuaptmumk in the Mi'kmaq language, has been advocated as a pragmatic way to bring together different worldviews by creating the ethical space to share different ways of knowing with potential for the equitable weaving of perspectives from both worldviews to provide solutions to common challenges89,90. As described by Mi’kmaq First Nation Elder Albert Marshall: Two-Eyed Seeing is learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledges and ways of knowing, and to use both these eyes for the benefit of all91. This approach has enhanced environmental decision-making by providing coherent narratives of long-term social-ecological change beyond conventional monitoring programs89.
MSP processes can value multiple ways of knowing by working collaboratively with individuals and communities who want to contribute their knowledge, including from recent lived experience. Marine spatial plans increasingly incorporate multiple ways of knowing, such as the Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari project in Aotearoa (New Zealand), which integrated Western science with mātauranga Māori92. In the Arctic, low-impact shipping corridors have been co-designed by Inuit communities, their ways of life, and their relationship to ice93. Through the Marine Plan Partnership for the North Pacific Coast, 17 coastal First Nations in British Columbia, Canada, have developed regional action plans and frameworks94.
Social data and knowledge
Across millennia, coastal communities have formed cultural ties to the seascape through foods95, fishing practices96, and stories of their ancestors97. Spatially explicit studies of cultural seascapes are common in archaeological and anthropological literature. Nevertheless, there is still a significant information gap in social data and knowledge4,32,33 for MSP. Social knowledge should be considered when collecting place-based information for MSP to create a new, more diverse ecological understanding of the ocean15. As human dimensions of the seascape vary across space, these values could be made spatially explicit31 (where appropriate) to fill the sociocultural data gap in MSP98.
Spatial representations of tangible and intangible cultural variables are increasingly emerging with progress in techniques such as participatory mapping, emotional cartography, and the use of geolocated social media or photo-elicitation data99,100,101. However, not all place-based social data and knowledge should be put into a spatial framework or integrated with biophysical information. When working with different social data and knowledge types, to ensure they are considered simultaneously and not merged, a Two-Eyed Seeing approach provides an opportunity to generate parallel streams of knowledge and enable learning across and between the systems102. Quantitative approaches focusing only on exteriority and treating people as simple objects in a system independent of cultural dimensions will be insufficient to comprehensively understand and manage many human-ocean interactions. Transdisciplinary interactions must begin by recognizing the humanity, sovereignty, and validity of place-based knowledge-holders claims to place, culture, and knowledge103, including subjective phenomenologies. For example, the Dene peoples in the North American Subarctic believe that plants, animals, rivers, mountains, and glaciers are alive, have agency, and express free will104.
When seeking to operationalize a place-based approach in MSP, researchers and practitioners should ensure significant value is attributed to research ethics to ensure all methods to collect social data and knowledge are conducted in a way that is respectful of the welfare and rights of human participants and their related culture103,105,106. Ethics are paramount to safeguarding just, consensual knowledge exchange ‘in a good way’ to ensure social data and knowledge is not marginalized, misused, misrepresented, or appropriated105,107. Ethical considerations could involve early discussions with local partners more closely connected with cultural norms, ensuring advanced consideration of the potential ethical issues surrounding receiving, caring for, and sharing sacred and ancestral knowledge. Potential issues could be mitigated by working with local partners to develop a set of culturally sensitive research protocols103,106. Projects should aim to engage with equitable information-sharing approaches to datafication by prioritizing the co-production of social data and knowledge through a collaborative approach with local partners and through an advisory committee to ensure research is conducted and shared back in an ethical manner. Criteria for carrying out culturally sensitive research protocols aligned with collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics (CARE) can be found in guidelines from the Global Indigenous Data Alliance and are outlined in Jennings et al.108.
Operationalizing place-based MSP: tools and techniques
Pluralistic approaches can contribute to the successful management of ocean resources109,110,111,112. Applying multiple ways of knowing in MSP also requires multiple ways of doing113,114 (i.e., methods from different disciplines), and here we highlight a few of the commonly used tools and techniques available for operationalizing these core place-based considerations for MSP. A range of approaches can be used to uncover social data and knowledge surrounding a sense of place, cultural heritage, and other seascape values held by a range of ocean users (Table 2). Marine social science is a relatively new but growing field with diverse methods employed115,116,117 for various purposes118. Some techniques which may be used to better understand social data and knowledge include oral history interviews, cognitive mapping, storytelling, and engagement with stakeholders, their histories, languages, and cultures46,92,93,116,119,120. In essence, bringing subjective, human-derived values into MSP requires consideration of how different stakeholders may experience and think about the seascape and why these experiences may differ. Ultimately, a thoughtful selection of appropriate and ethical methods to elicit this social knowledge is needed.
Cognitive mapping: applications and case study
Mental models are cognitive representations people hold121,122, informing how people interact with social-ecological systems and can be studied through cognitive mapping approaches (Table 2; refs. 123,124). Mental models and maps can include spatial observations, personal experience, and social and historical relations124, providing significant insight into cultural seascape knowledge and sense of place125. Multiple and varied mental models of the seascape often challenge how Western scientists quantitatively and objectively characterize the land-sea interface and can provide a complete understanding that includes a cultural connection to the ocean and a sense of place126 (Box 1: mental models). For example, Aotearoa Māori use whakapapa, a type of mental map through which their phenomenological world is understood through a diagrammatic or oral representation of spiritual, spatial, temporal, and biophysical information about a place127. Further, a detailed map of significant seafloor features around Anuta Island in the Solomon Islands was created through mental seascape mapping by Polynesians of Anuta, depicting the locations and place names of hundreds of coral reef patches, rocks, and fishing grounds, many of which are named after Anutans or describe geomorphological and contextual geoinformation128.
Arts-based methods: applications and case study
Symbols represented across a range of visual art are material elements that connect people to a location, helping to identify individuals’ and societies’ sense of place129. There is a need to understand how ocean users identify themselves and if this identification can be represented spatially, on land, or at sea. Symbols of the sea are part of a social construction conferring significance to the ocean and building an identity. Communications and social networks bring artistic symbols of ocean experiences back on land (Box 2: arts-based methods). Such artistic symbols can be significant, as exemplified in the Azores, where sailors follow a rite and paint on the docks of Horta’s marina (Box 2, Fig. 2).
Establishing these material symbols across the seascape gives place identity, permanence, and significance, similar to the role of symbology on maps130. Considering the subjectivity of spatial representations, critical cartography can represent overlooked perspectives, particularly with the spatial focus of MSP131,132. Such reflexivity allows divergent spatial representations to be integrated within the language of MSP133,134, co-producing spatial understandings to advance seascape management135. Spatial representations underpin spatial management, realizing communities’ presence and claims, but also reflect the mappers’ standpoints and intentions136,137.
Place names: applications and case study
Culture anchors a people to a place-based reality138, highlighting how the concept of seascapes exist through the interactions, oral histories, legends, place names, and narratives of particular people who live with the ocean. The ocean is a lived space for many cultures. The fluidity with which localized cultures vary spatially and temporally on both social and ecological scales makes them challenging to map and essential to understand (Box 3: Cultural identity). Cultural zonation of ocean space and place demonstrates that seascapes can be conceptualized and understood by more than biophysical characteristics and highlights the subjective realities in which we might view, categorize, and model seascapes across cultures. For example, Native Hawaiians’ identities are shaped by cultural seascapes29,139, connecting them with other Hawaiians in an ancestral web of ecological kinship140. Native Hawaiians have identified >30 ocean zones and place names across their cultural seascape, such as the kai kāheka (tidepools), kai kilo heʻe (the area of the ocean to look for octopus), or the kai palaoa (the area of the ocean where whales migrate)141. Some of the ocean zones, such as kai kilo heʻe and kai palaoa, are not represented on a two-dimensional map but portrayed through stories, place names, familial fishing grounds, and the social-ecological interactions that occurred in these three-dimensional ocean spaces142. Another important perceptual feature is the continuum between land and sea. Some indigenous cultures do not perceive land as existing separately from the ocean, with the land-sea considered one entity29,143,144. In contrast, Western science draws a line between land and sea in many ways, such as management jurisdiction, mapping data, and cultural perspectives. Such understandings of space hold rich social-ecological information, which could be shared to inform MSP.
Stakeholder engagement: application and case study
Stakeholder engagement can enable an understanding of a diverse range of values and coastal management preferences. Values hold diverse meanings across disciplines145, but can be generally understood as significance attributed to something by someone, and may be captured through economic or broader sociocultural methods (Table 2). The focus on value differs markedly across disciplines, ranging from monetary, intrinsic, to a shared set of values amongst a group of individuals (Box 4: Values). The primacy of monetary valuations in MSP does not represent how people construct and understand seascapes, necessitating broader conceptualization and diversified methods30.
People possess value orientations that influence how they relate to the seascape, but these may be more challenging to capture meaningfully alongside biophysical and socioeconomic measures. An individual’s value orientation informs their assigned values, such as relative or monetary value, attributed to various features or activities across the seascape. Other value types include assigned values (e.g., values of objects), moral values (e.g., human rights), intrinsic values (e.g., nature in its own right), and held values (e.g., broad ideals such as fairness)75. A key challenge of incorporating value datasets into MSP is the nuance of individual versus shared value and what value information is more appropriate to enhance our understanding of social-ecological systems31,146. Incorporating stakeholder values, including subjective and objective values, of the seascape is vital to developing marine spatial management plans147. Integrating stakeholder values and perceptions into MSP can be done using collaborative digital mapping tools (Box 4).
Conclusions and future directions
Although systems ecology and marine social science have provided important advances to how we conceptualize marine ecosystems3,148, we argue that the pressing MSP challenge of today is to accelerate the development of a sustainable, integrative, and regenerative approach. We call for the incorporation of a range of social knowledge types and multiple ways of knowing and doing into MSP practices. The five core considerations of place-based MSP outlined here establish a pathway toward integrating the multiple perspectives of humans and nature in MSP. Moving towards place-based MSP can help to solve three critical issues in the current context of global socio-environmental transformations. First, these key concepts are relevant for interdisciplinary science, as solving problems raised by MSP requires more than superimposing layers of scientific knowledge. It requires integrating ecology, physical science, and sociology and including traditional ecological knowledge149 and a range of perspectives. Second, marine planning and management is less efficient if policies are not integrated and if issues are addressed by each sector (transportation, fisheries, conservation, tourism, etc.) rather than in a holistic manner. Third, a place-based approach accounts for individual and collective values and may open new ways for solving governance issues.
As decision-making is political in nature, integrating local users in the different stages of marine policy (analysis of drivers and pressures, design of alternative solutions, impact of implementation on different users) is of higher importance. For example, engaging local stakeholders in the management process through multi-directional dialogues has increased the success of management projects involving local communities150,151. This integration results in marine governance models and management approaches that are very different from a top-down, engineering-based problem-solving style152 and is a factor for long-term relevant management decisions based on co-learning and evaluation153. The integration of social knowledge is one of the conditions for efficient, just, and well-accepted management decisions92,109,154, but it must be done ‘in a good way’ through ethical practice107. Enhancing place-based knowledge may support solution-focused research outputs and MSP initiatives in a swiftly changing ocean. While the theoretical and practical basis for place-based MSP exists, there may be obstacles to integrating social data and knowledge into marine spatial planning and management processes. The time and cost considerations for collecting place-based data will be context-dependent and not all social data should be coupled with biophysical data in a database for various ethical reasons105,108.
There is a history of thinking about our ocean systems as spaces, not places. Most marine ecosystem-based management and MSP have been implemented using a spatial approach. We believe a shift from understanding and managing ocean spaces to including ocean places will be vital to achieving a regenerative relationship with the ocean. Anita Maurstad writes of Norway’s oceanic communities highlighting that when fishers no longer use the cultural seascape and perpetuate their knowledge, place names, and understanding of local ocean conditions, it disappears and turns back into a “sea wilderness”155. But the Ocean is not empty. It is dynamic, heterogeneous, highly interconnected, and can be understood by people in many ways. Place matters in the sea, and the way we view the ocean determines how we manage it.
References
Frazão Santos, C. et al. A sustainable ocean for all. NPJ Ocean Sustain 1, s44183-022–00004–4 (2022).
Halpern, B. S. et al. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488, 615–620 (2012).
Bennett, N. J. Marine social science for the peopled seas. Coast. Manag. 47, 244–252 (2019).
Bennett, N. J. et al. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol. Conserv. 205, 93–108 (2017).
Grumbine, R. E. What is ecosystem management? Conserv. Biol. 8, 27–38 (1994).
Slocombe, D. S. Implementing ecosystem-based management. BioScience 43, 612–622 (1993).
Arkema, K. K., Abramson, S. C. & Dewsbury, B. M. Marine ecosystem-based management: from characterization to implementation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 525–532 (2006).
Douvere, F. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Mar. Policy 32, 762–771 (2008).
McLeod, K., Lubchenco, J., Palumbi, S. & Rosenberg, A. Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management (2005).
Odum, E. P. The strategy of ecosystem development: an understanding of ecological succession provides a basis for resolving man’s conflict with nature. Science 164, 262–270 (1969).
Crowder, L. B. et al. Resolving mismatches in U.S. Ocean Governance. Science 313, 617–618 (2006).
Crowder, L. & Norse, E. Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 32, 772–778 (2008).
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).
Maxwell, S. M. et al. Dynamic ocean management: defining and conceptualizing real-time management of the ocean. Mar. Policy 58, 42–50 (2015).
Frazão Santos, C. et al. Key components of sustainable climate-smart ocean planning. NPJ Ocean Sustain 3, 10 (2024).
Reimer, J. M. et al. The Marine Spatial Planning Index: a tool to guide and assess marine spatial planning. NPJ Ocean Sustain 2, 15 (2023).
Reimer, J. M., Devillers, R. & Claudet, J. Benefits and gaps in area-based management tools for the ocean Sustainable Development Goal. Nat. Sustain 4, 349–357 (2020).
Frazão Santos, C. et al. in World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation 571–592 (Elsevier, 2019).
Manea, E., Agardy, T. & Bongiorni, L. Link marine restoration to marine spatial planning through ecosystem‐based management to maximize ocean regeneration. Aquat. Conserv. 33, 1387–1399 (2023).
UNESCO-IOC/European Commission. MSPglobal International Guide on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning (2021).
St. Martin, K., McCay, B. J., Murray, G. D., Johnson, T. R. & Oles, B. Communities, knowledge and fisheries of the future. IJGENVI 7, 221 (2007).
McKinley, E., Acott, T. & Stojanovic, T. in Maritime Spatial Planning (eds. Zaucha, J. & Gee, K.) 151–174 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).
Boucquey, N., St. Fairbanks, L., Martin, K., Campbell, L. M. & McCay, B. The ontological politics of marine spatial planning: assembling the ocean and shaping the capacities of ‘Community’ and ‘Environment’. Geoforum 75, 1–11 (2016).
St. Martin, K. & Hall-Arber, M. The missing layer: geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 32, 779–786 (2008).
St. Martin, K. & Hall-Arber, M. Creating a place for ‘Community’ in New England fisheries. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 15, 161–170 (2008).
Ehler, C. & Douvere, F. Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-by-Step Approach toward Ecosystem-Based Management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. https://www.oceanbestpractices.net/handle/11329/459 (2009).
Flannery, W. in Ocean Governance (eds. Partelow, S., Hadjimichael, M. & Hornidge, A.-K.) Vol. 25, 93–111 (Springer International Publishing, 2023).
Gee, K. & Siedschlag, D. A place-based perspective on marine and coastal space. Eur. XXI 36, 59–74 (2020).
Ingersoll, K. E. Waves of Knowing: A Seascape Epistemology (Duke University Press, 2016).
Said, A. & Trouillet, B. Bringing ‘deep knowledge’ of fisheries into marine spatial planning. Marit. Stud. 19, 347–357 (2020).
Gee, K. et al. Identifying culturally significant areas for marine spatial planning. Ocean Coast. Manag. 136, 139–147 (2017).
Kittinger, J. N. et al. A practical approach for putting people in ecosystem-based ocean planning. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 448–456 (2014).
Le Cornu, E., Kittinger, J. N., Koehn, J. Z., Finkbeiner, E. M. & Crowder, L. B. Current practice and future prospects for social data in coastal and ocean planning: social data in coastal and ocean planning. Conserv. Biol. 28, 902–911 (2014).
Frazão Santos, C. et al. Ocean planning in a changing climate. Nat. Geosci. 9, 730–730 (2016).
UNESCO. 2nd International Conference on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning, 15–17 March 2017. in Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission [6435], Directorate General for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs Vol. IOC/2017/WR/279 48 (Paris, France, 2017).
Tuan, Y.-F. in Philosophy in Geography (eds. Gale, S. & Olsson, G.) 387–427 (Springer Netherlands, 1979).
Wilson, M. W. in Key Methods in Geography (eds. Clifford, N. J., Cope, M. & Gillespie, T.) (SAGE, 2023).
Sheppard, E. Knowledge production through critical GIS: genealogy and prospects. Cartographica 40, 5–21 (2005).
St. Martin, K. & Wing, J. The discourse and discipline of GIS. Cartographica 42, 235–248 (2007).
St. Martin, K. & Olson, J. in Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean 123–141 (Elsevier, 2017).
Steinberg, P. & Peters, K. Wet Ontologies, fluid spaces: giving depth to volume through oceanic thinking. Environ. Plan D. 33, 247–264 (2015).
Collins, K. in Transdisciplinary Marine Research 46–62 (Routledge, 2023).
Daigle, M. Awawanenitakik The spatial politics of recognition and relational geographies of Indigenous self-determination. Can. Geogr. Géogr. Can. 60, 259–269 (2016).
Barker, A. J. & Pickerill, J. Doings with the land and sea: decolonising geographies, Indigeneity, and enacting place-agency. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 44, 640–662 (2020).
Johnson, J. T. et al. Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods. Sustain. Sci. 11, 1–11 (2016).
Brattland, C. & Nilsen, S. Reclaiming indigenous seascapes. Sami place names in Norwegian sea charts. Polar Geogr. 34, 275–297 (2011).
Boroditsky, L. How language shapes thought. Sci. Am. 304, 62–65 (2011).
Masterson, V. A. et al. The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda. Ecol. Soc. 22, (2017).
Berkes, F., Folke, C. & Colding, J. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
Aswani, S. et al. Marine resource management and conservation in the Anthropocene. Envir. Conserv. 45, 192–202 (2018).
Sagoe, A. A., Aheto, D. W., Okyere, I., Adade, R. & Odoi, J. Community participation in assessment of fisheries related ecosystem services towards the establishment of marine protected area in the Greater Cape Three Points area in Ghana. Mar. Policy 124, 104336 (2021).
Fabinyi, M., Evans, L. & Foale, S. J. Social-ecological systems, social diversity, and power: insights from anthropology and political ecology. Ecol. Soc. 19, (2014).
Jones, N. A., Shaw, S., Ross, H., Witt, K. & Pinner, B. The study of human values in understanding and managing social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 21, (2016).
Faulkner, L., Brown, K. & Quinn, T. Analyzing community resilience as an emergent property of dynamic social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 23, art24 (2018).
Schlüter, M. et al. Capturing emergent phenomena in social-ecological systems: an analytical framework. Ecol. Soc. 24, art11 (2019).
Reimann, L., Vafeidis, A. T. & Honsel, L. E. Population development as a driver of coastal risk: current trends and future pathways. Camb. Prisms Coast. Futures 1, e14 (2023).
Williams, G. J. et al. Coral reef ecology in the Anthropocene. Funct. Ecol. 33, 1014–1022 (2019).
Lombard, A. T. et al. Principles for transformative ocean governance. Nat. Sustain 6, 1587–1599 (2023).
Biedenweg, K., Stiles, K. & Wellman, K. A holistic framework for identifying human wellbeing indicators for marine policy. Mar. Policy 64, 31–37 (2016).
Anbleyth-Evans, J. in Human-Nature Interactions (eds. Misiune, I., Depellegrin, D. & Egarter Vigl, L.) 315–327 (Springer International Publishing, 2022).
Pittman, S. et al. Seascape ecology: identifying research priorities for an emerging ocean sustainability science. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 663, 1–29 (2021).
Auster, P. J. et al. Developing an ocean ethic: science, utility, aesthetics, self-interest, and different ways of knowing. Conserv. Biol. 23, 233–235 (2009).
Ainsworth, G. B., Kenter, J. O., O’Connor, S., Daunt, F. & Young, J. C. A fulfilled human life: eliciting sense of place and cultural identity in two UK marine environments through the Community Voice Method. Ecosyst. Serv. 39, 100992 (2019).
Ardoin, N. M. Exploring sense of place and environmental behavior at an ecoregional scale in three sites. Hum. Ecol. 42, 425–441 (2014).
Ardoin, N. M., Bowers, A. W. & Wheaton, M. Leveraging collective action and environmental literacy to address complex sustainability challenges. Ambio 52, 30–44 (2023).
Kelly, R. et al. Connecting to the oceans: supporting ocean literacy and public engagement. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 32, 123–143 (2022).
Bennett, E. M. et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 76–85 (2015).
Gascon, M., Zijlema, W., Vert, C., White, M. P. & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. Outdoor blue spaces, human health and well-being: a systematic review of quantitative studies. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 220, 1207–1221 (2017).
Korpela, K. M. et al. Environmental strategies of affect regulation and their associations with subjective well-being. Front. Psychol. 9, 562 (2018).
Lovell, R., Wheeler, B. W., Higgins, S. L., Irvine, K. N. & Depledge, M. H. A systematic review of the health and well-being benefits of biodiverse environments. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part B 17, 1–20 (2014).
White, M. P., Elliott, L. R., Gascon, M., Roberts, B. & Fleming, L. E. Blue space, health and well-being: a narrative overview and synthesis of potential benefits. Environ. Res. 191, 110169 (2020).
Rainisio, N. & Inghilleri, P. in Well-Being and Cultures (eds. Knoop, H. H. & Delle Fave, A.) Vol. 3, 103–116 (Springer Netherlands, 2013).
Marsell, M. R., Stadler, J., Korn, H., Irvine, K. N. & Bonn, A. (eds.) Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change (Springer, 2019).
Ainsworth, C. H., Pitcher, T. J. & Rotinsulu, C. Evidence of fishery depletions and shifting cognitive baselines in Eastern Indonesia. Biol. Conserv. 141, 848–859 (2008).
Chan, K. M. A. et al. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1462–1465 (2016).
García-Quijano, C. G., Poggie, J. J., Pitchon, A. & Del Pozo, M. H. Coastal resource foraging, life satisfaction, and well-being in Southeastern Puerto Rico. J. Anthropol. Res. 71, 145–167 (2015).
Gesler, W. M. Therapeutic landscapes: medical issues in light of the new cultural geography. Soc. Sci. Med. 34, 735–746 (1992).
Stori, F. T., Peres, C. M., Turra, A. & Pressey, R. L. Traditional ecological knowledge supports ecosystem-based management in disturbed coastal marine social-ecological systems. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 571 (2019).
Colorado, P. Indigenous science. ReVision 18, 6–10 (1996).
Varghese, J. & Crawford, S. S. A cultural framework for Indigenous, Local, and Science knowledge systems in ecology and natural resource management. Ecol. Monogr. 91, e01431 (2021).
Miller, T. R. et al. Epistemological pluralism: reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecol. Soc. 13, (2008).
Berkström, C., Papadopoulos, M., Jiddawi, N. S. & Nordlund, L. M. Fishers’ local ecological knowledge (LEK) on connectivity and seascape management. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 130 (2019).
Christie, P. & White, A. T. Trends in development of coastal area management in tropical countries: from central to community orientation. Coast. Manag. 25, 155–181 (1997).
Johannes, R. E. & Neis, B. The value of anecdote. Fishers’ knowledge in fisheries science and management. Coast. Manag. Sourceb. 4, 41–58 (2007).
Johnson, M. in Lore: Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge (IDRC, 1992).
Wolfe, J. Indigenous and Western Knowledge and Resources Management System (University School of Rural Planning and Development …, 1992).
Bender, M., Bustamante, R. & Leonard, K. Living in relationship with the Ocean to transform governance in the UN Ocean Decade. PLoS Biol. 20, e3001828 (2022).
Nadow, N., Dorrian-Bak, H.-B. & Maloney, E. Leveraging Earth law principles to protect ocean rights. Env’t L. Rep. 53, 10838 (2023).
Reid, A. J. et al. “Two-Eyed Seeing”: an Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish Fish 22, 243–261 (2021).
Wright, A. L., Gabel, C., Ballantyne, M., Jack, S. M. & Wahoush, O. Using two-eyed seeing in research with indigenous people: an integrative review. Int. J. Qual. Methods 18, 1609406919869695 (2019).
Bartlett, C., Marshall, M. & Marshall, A. Two-Eyed Seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2, 331–340 (2012).
Peart, R. A ‘sea change’ in marine planning: the development of New Zealand’s first marine spatial plan. Policy Quart. 13, (2017).
Dawson, J. et al. Infusing Inuit and local knowledge into the Low Impact Shipping Corridors: an adaptation to increased shipping activity and climate change in Arctic Canada. Environ. Sci. Policy 105, 19–36 (2020).
McGee, G. et al. Marine Plan Partnership for the North Pacific Coast: engagement and communication with stakeholders and the public. Mar. Policy 142, 104613 (2022).
Kim, J.-E. Land use management and cultural value of ecosystem services in Southwestern Korean islands. J. Mar. Isl. Cult. 2, 49–55 (2013).
Khakzad, S. & Griffith, D. The role of fishing material culture in communities’ sense of place as an added-value in management of coastal areas. J. Mar. Isl. Cult. 5, 95–117 (2016).
Whaanga, H., Wehi, P., Cox, M., Roa, T. & Kusabs, I. Māori oral traditions record and convey indigenous knowledge of marine and freshwater resources. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 52, 487–496 (2018).
Caldow, C. et al. Biogeographic assessments: a framework for information synthesis in marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 51, 423–432 (2015).
Bubalo, M., van Zanten, B. T. & Verburg, P. H. Crowdsourcing geo-information on landscape perceptions and preferences: a review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 184, 101–111 (2019).
Scully-Engelmeyer, K. M., Granek, E. F., Nielsen-Pincus, M. & Brown, G. Participatory GIS mapping highlights indirect use and existence values of coastal resources and marine conservation areas. Ecosyst. Serv. 50, 101301 (2021).
Tonge, J., Moore, S. A., Ryan, M. M. & Beckley, L. E. A photo-elicitation approach to exploring the place meanings ascribed by campers to the Ningaloo coastline, North-western Australia. Aust. Geographer 44, 143–160 (2013).
Moorman, L., Evanovitch, J. & Muliaina, T. Envisioning indigenized geography: a two-eyed seeing approach. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 45, 201–220 (2021).
Kwaymullina, A. Research, Ethics and Indigenous Peoples: an Australian Indigenous perspective on three threshold considerations for respectful engagement. AlterNative: Int. J. Indigenous Peoples 12, 437–449 (2016).
Miller, A. M. & Davidson-Hunt, I. Agency and resilience: teachings of Pikangikum First Nation elders, Northwestern Ontario. Ecol. Soc. 18, art9 (2013).
Kimmerer, R. W. & Artelle, K. A. Time to support Indigenous science. Science 383, 243–243 (2024).
Proulx, M., Ross, L., Macdonald, C., Fitzsimmons, S. & Smit, M. Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge and ocean observing: a review of successful partnerships. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 703938 (2021).
Reid, A. J. et al. Ecological research ‘in a good way’ means ethical and equitable relationships with Indigenous Peoples and Lands. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02309-0 (2024).
Jennings, L. et al. Applying the ‘CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance’ to ecology and biodiversity research. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7, 1547–1551 (2023).
Ban, N. C. et al. Incorporate Indigenous perspectives for impactful research and effective management. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1680–1683 (2018).
Nenadovic, M., Johnson, T. & Wilson, J. Implementing the western Gulf of Maine Area Closure: the role and perception of fishers’ ecological knowledge. Ecol. Soc. 17, art20 (2012).
Ruddle, K. in Property Rights in A Social and Ecological Context: Case Studies and Design Applications (eds. Han, S. & Musinghe, M.) (The World Bank, 1995).
Shephard, S., Connolly, P., Hareide, N.-R. & Rogan, E. Establishing stakeholder connections for management of the Irish orange roughy fishery. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64, 841–845 (2007).
Bavinck, M. & Verrips, J. Manifesto for the marine social sciences. Marit. Stud. 19, 121–123 (2020).
Gómez, S. & Köpsel, V. Transdisciplinary Marine Research: Bridging Science and Society (Taylor & Francis, 2023).
Koehn, J. Z., Reineman, D. R. & Kittinger, J. N. Progress and promise in spatial human dimensions research for ecosystem-based ocean planning. Mar. Policy 42, 31–38 (2013).
Noble, M. M., Harasti, D., Pittock, J. & Doran, B. Linking the social to the ecological using GIS methods in marine spatial planning and management to support resilience: a review. Mar. Policy 108, 103657 (2019).
Sanborn, T. & Jung, J. Intersecting social science and conservation. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 676394 (2021).
McKinley, E. et al. Development and expansion in the marine social sciences: Insights from the global community. iScience 25, 104735 (2022).
Lees, L. et al. Integrating maritime cultural heritage into maritime spatial planning in Estonia. Mar. Policy 147, 105337 (2023).
Strickland-Munro, J., Kobryn, H., Brown, G. & Moore, S. A. Marine spatial planning for the future: using Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) to inform the human dimension for large marine parks. Mar. Policy 73, 15–26 (2016).
Bostrom, A. in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science (Oxford University Press, 2017).
Johnson-Laird, P. N. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness (Harvard University Press, 1983).
Kearney, A. R. & Kaplan, S. Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people: the conceptual content cognitive map (3CM). Environ. Behav. 29, 579–617 (1997).
Jones, N. A., Ross, H., Lynam, T., Perez, P. & Leitch, A. Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecol. Soc. 16, (2011).
Puniwai, N., Gray, S., Lepczyk, C., Kapono, T. M. K. A. & Severance, C. Mapping ocean currents through human observations: insights from Hilo Bay, Hawai’i. Hum. Ecol. 44, 365–374 (2016).
McKinnon, J., Mushynsky, J. & Cabrera, G. A fluid sea in the Mariana Islands: community archaeology and mapping the seascape of Saipan. J. Marit. Archaeol. 9, 59–79 (2014).
Roberts, M. Mind maps of the Maori. GeoJournal 77, 741–751 (2012).
Feinberg, R. et al. ‘Drawing the coral heads’: mental mapping and its physical representation in a Polynesian community. Cartogr. J. 40, 243–253 (2003).
Slocum, T. A., McMaster, R. B., Kessler, F. C., & Howard, H. H. (2022). Thematic cartography andgeovisualization. CRC Press.
Monnet, J. La symbolique des lieux: pour une géographie des relations entre espace, pouvoir et identité. cybergeo https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.5316 (1998).
Pavlovskaya, M. Critical GIS as a tool for social transformation. Can. Geogr. Géogr. Can. 62, 40–54 (2018).
Pavlovskaya, M. & St. Martin, K. Feminism and geographic information systems: from a missing object to a mapping subject: feminism and geographic information systems. Geogr. Compass 1, 583–606 (2007).
Karnad, D. Incorporating local ecological knowledge aids participatory mapping for marine conservation and customary fishing management. Mar. Policy 135, 104841 (2022).
Warren, S., Bampton, M., Cornick, L. & Patolo, N. Mapping the anthropogenic ocean: a critical GIS approach. Geogr. Rev. 113, 554–572 (2023).
Mateos-Molina, D. et al. An integrative and participatory coastal habitat mapping framework for sustainable development actions in the United Arab Emirates. Appl. Geogr. 136, 102568 (2021).
Monmonier, M. How to Lie with Maps (University of Chicago Press, 1991).
Shucksmith, R. J. & Kelly, C. Data collection and mapping—principles, processes and application in marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 50, 27–33 (2014).
Kanahele, P. K. Ka Honua Ola/The Living Earth: `Eli`eli Kau Mai/Descend, Deepen the Revelation (Kamehameha Schools Pr, 2011).
Kikiloi, K. & Graves, M. Rebirth of an archipelago: sustaining a Hawaiian cultural identity for people andhomeland. Hulili: Multidiscip. Res. Hawaiian Well-Being 6, 73–114 (2010).
Oliveira, K.-A. R. K. N. Ancestral Places: Understanding Kanaka Geographies (Oregon State University Press, 2014).
Kahāʻulelio, D. Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa: Hawaiian Fishing Traditions (2006).
Malo, D. Hawaiian Antiquities (Moolelo Hawaii) (Hawaiian Gazette Company, Limited, 1903).
Jokiel, P., Rodgers, K., Walsh, W., Polhemus, D. & Wilhelm, T. Marine resource management in the Hawaiian Archipelago: the traditional Hawaiian system in relation to the Western approach. J. Mar. Biol. 2011, 151682 (2011).
Whitehouse, H., Watkin Lui, F., Sellwood, J., Barrett, M. J. & Chigeza, P. Sea Country: navigating Indigenous and colonial ontologies in Australian environmental education. Environ. Educ. Res. 20, 56–69 (2014).
Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A. & Shwom, R. Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 335–372 (2005).
Murray, G., D’Anna, L. & MacDonald, P. Measuring what we value: the utility of mixed methods approaches for incorporating values into marine social-ecological system management. Mar. Policy 73, 61–68 (2016).
Pomeroy, R. & Douvere, F. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Mar. Policy 32, 816–822 (2008).
McKinley, E., Acott, T. & Yates, K. L. Marine social sciences: looking towards a sustainable future. Environ. Sci. Policy 108, 85–92 (2020).
Berkes, F. Sacred Ecology (Routledge, 2017).
Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Plan. Theory Pract. 5, 419–436 (2004).
Ban, N. C. & Klein, C. J. Spatial socioeconomic data as a cost in systematic marine conservation planning. Conserv. Lett. 2, 206–215 (2009).
Clarke, J. & Flannery, W. The post-political nature of marine spatial planning and modalities for its re-politicisation. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 22, 170–183 (2020).
Monroe, M. C., Plate, R. & Oxarart, A. Intermediate collaborative adaptive management strategies build stakeholder capacity. Ecol. Soc. 18, (2013).
Loch, T. K. & Riechers, M. Integrating indigenous and local knowledge in management and research on coastal ecosystems in the Global South: a literature review. Ocean Coast. Manag. 212, 105821 (2021).
Maurstad, A. in Northern Ethnographic Landscapes. Perspectives from Circumpolar Nations (eds. Krupnik, I., Mason, R. & Horton, T. H.) 277–297 (Smithsonian Institution, 2004).
Williams, D. R. Making sense of ‘place’: Reflections on pluralism and positionality in place research. Landscape and urban planning, 131, 74–82 (2014).
Bennett, N. J. et al. Environmental (in)justice in the Anthropocene ocean. Mar. Policy 147, 105383 (2023).
Wester, J., Broad, K., Backe, K. H., Callwood, K., Fielding, R., Jacquet, J., Macdonald, C. and Moore, A. Culture and historic value as ways of understanding complex human health-ocean linkages. In Oceans and Human Health, 39–70 (Academic Press, 2023).
Fleming, L. E., Maycock, B., White, M. P. & Depledge, M. H. Fostering human health through ocean sustainability in the 21st century. People Nat. 1, 276–283 (2019).
Sheetz, S. D., Tegarden, D. P., Kozar, K. A. & Zigurs, I. A group support systems approach to cognitive mapping. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 11, 31–57 (1994).
Wade, E. & Biedenweg, K. Exploring the diversity of mental models associated with Belize’s Managed Access Fisheries Policy. Ocean Coast. Manag. 178, 104868 (2019).
Leavy, P. Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practice (Guilford Publications, 2020).
McNamara, K. E. & McNamara, J. P. Using participatory action research to share knowledge of the local environment and climate change: case study of Erub Island. Torres Strait. AJIE 40, 30–39 (2011).
Goodyear-Ka’ōpua, N. in Kanaka ‘Ōiwi Methodologies (eds. Oliveira, K.-A. R. K. N. & Wright, E. K.) 1–29 (University of Hawaii Press, 2017).
Léopold, M., Herrenschmidt, J. B. & Thaman, R. R. The relevance of traditional ecological knowledge for modern management of coral reef fisheries in Melanesia. in Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium Vol. 2, 1014–1018 (National Coral Reef Institute, 2008).
Cogos, S., Roué, M. & Roturier, S. Sami place names and maps: transmitting knowledge of a cultural landscape in contemporary contexts. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 49, 43–51 (2017).
Brattland, C. Towards a Coastal Sámi Atlas. ArcGIS StoryMaps https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/5fb5c83cfb8048dea5f884df3f72b603 (2021).
Katona, S. et al. Navigating the Seascape of Ocean Management: Waypoints on the Voyage toward Sustainable Use. https://doi.org/10.31230/osf.io/79w2d (2017).
Moore, S. A., Brown, G., Kobryn, H. & Strickland-Munro, J. Identifying conflict potential in a coastal and marine environment using participatory mapping. J. Environ. Manag. 197, 706–718 (2017).
Götz, N. & Holmén, J. Introduction to the theme issue: “Mental maps: geographical and historical perspectives”. J. Cult. Geogr. 35, 157–161 (2018).
Boyle, J. S. Meadows, Memories, and Missing Layers: Transdisciplinary Mapping of Sanday’s Seagrass Towards Restorative Marine Spatial Planning (The University of Oxford, 2023).
Furman, K. L., Aminpour, P., Gray, S. A. & Scyphers, S. B. Mental models for assessing coastal social-ecological systems following disasters. Mar. Policy 125, 104334 (2021).
Parrain, C. Territorialisation des espaces océaniques hauturiers. L’apport de la navigation à voile dans l’Océan Atlantique. (Université de La Rochelle, 2010).
Parrain, C. in Géographie des mers et des océans: capes-agrégation histoire-géographie (ed. Escach, N.) (Dunod, 2015).
Strand, M., Rivers, N. & Snow, B. Reimagining ocean stewardship: arts-based methods to ‘hear’ and ‘see’ indigenous and local knowledge in ocean management. Front. Mar. Sci. 9, 886632 (2022).
Chang, D. A. The World and All the Things upon It: Native Hawaiian Geographies of Exploration (U of Minnesota Press, 2016).
Dixon, D. P. & Jones, J. P. My dinner with Derrida, or spatial analysis and poststructuralism do lunch. Environ. Plan A 30, 247–260 (1998).
Berger, M., McClintock, W., Burt, C. & Welch, T. SeaSketch. in Evaluating Participatory Mapping Software (ed. Burnett, C. M.) 121–147 (Springer International Publishing, 2023).
Goldberg, E. G. & McClintock, W. J. Integrated participation tools facilitate science-based spatial planning with a web-based GIS. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposoim for GIS and Computer Cartography for Coastal Zone Managemnet 154–157 (2016).
Seijo, C., Calado, H., McClintock, W., Gil, A. & Fonseca, C. Mapping recreational ecosystem services from stakeholders’ perspective in the Azores. One Ecosyst. 6, e65751 (2021).
Chambers, R. Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries 25, 1–11 (2006).
Flannery, W., Healy, N. & Luna, M. Exclusion and non-participation in Marine Spatial Planning. Mar. Policy 88, 32–40 (2018).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.M.W., L.B.C., S.J.P., C.A.L., C.P., and N.P. developed the original idea with conceptual inputs from all authors. L.M.W., L.B.C., and S.J.P. led the writing of the manuscript with input on drafts from all authors (L.M.W., S.J.P., C.A.L., C.P., N.P., P.M., K.W., G.E.G., M.Y., S.T., J.S.B., and L.B.C.). All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
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.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wedding, L.M., Pittman, S.J., Lepczyk, C.A. et al. Integrating the multiple perspectives of people and nature in place-based marine spatial planning. npj Ocean Sustain 3, 43 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-024-00071-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-024-00071-9
