From ocean warming to deoxygenation, changes in ocean currents and sea level rise, climate impacts will lead to shifts in the distribution, composition and productivity of fish stocks at a global scale, with considerable regional variations, which will induce changes in fisheries planning and management. The direct effect of warming on fish stocks, for example, results from physiological changes at individual level that ultimately affect populations, communities, and the functioning of ecosystems. At the same time, increased frequency of storms and other extreme weather events is expected not only to promote the loss of important breeding/nursery habitats, but also to intensify danger at sea, increasing vulnerability of fishing communities and fishing infrastructures (e.g., (Barange et al., 2014, 2018; Poloczanska et al., 2016; Rutterford et al., 2015; Somero, 2012).

Marine conservation

All drivers of change can affect ocean conservation. For example, distributional shifts may lead priority habitats and species to move beyond the limits of current protected areas (either inside, across or outside national borders). As well, cumulative impacts of ocean warming and acidification, together with changes in circulation patterns, are expected to alter the spatial scale of marine ecological connectivity. Conservation areas will thus need to be reorganized and redesigned if they are to ensure effectiveness and efficiency of ecosystems protection measures—e.g., areas that are closer together or larger in size, or with dynamic boundaries. Ocean warming, sea level rise and increased frequency of hurricanes and storms, are also expected to induce loss of key shallow-water habitats such as coral reefs (e.g., (Ainsworth et al., 2016; Coleman et al., 2017; Gormley et al., 2015; Keppel et al., 2015; Maxwell et al., 2020).

Aquaculture

This is another use that can be significantly affected by all climate drivers of change. Migration of optimal thermal conditions due to ocean warming can benefit cultivated species with wider optimal temperature ranges and higher thermal limits (e.g., increased metabolism and growth rates), while species with narrower optimal ranges and lower thermal limits are expected to suffer enhanced mortalities and a decline in productivity. As well, background conditions for particular cultures can be significantly affected by changes in food webs due to distributional shifts in primary production. Because aquaculture is limited to relatively “small” areas when compared to other ocean uses, and has unnaturally higher host densities, increased occurrence of infectious diseases (parasites, bacteria, viruses) can have significant deleterious impacts. Because of this narrower spatial scale, effects of harmful algal blooms in caged stocks will also be more severe than in fisheries which is of special relevance due to human health issues. Damage of infrastructures (e.g., rafts, lines or cages) and stock losses can also derive from more intense and frequent extreme events (e.g., Barange et al., 2014, 2018; Froehlich et al., 2018; Galappaththi et al., 2020; Reid et al., 2019).

Tourism

The extent to which marine tourism is dependent on climate change impacts is highly variable, depending on both the activity (e.g., whale watching, diving, snorkeling, surfing, sailing and recreational fishing) and the destination. Ocean warming effects in marine ecosystems, such as bleaching of coral reefs in tropical regions, can decrease demand for diving, snorkeling or underwater photography activities. Concomitantly small island nations (e.g., Caribbean region), being highly dependent on tourism as their major source of income, are significantly vulnerable to sea level rise and increased extreme events. Changes in circulation patterns (that affect surfing, windsurfing, kitesurfing, and sailing activities) or the increased emergence of new diseases (which can limit diving and swimming due to human health issues) are also expected to impact tourism (e.g., Jones & Phillips, 2018; Scott et al., 2012, 2019).

Shipping

Marine transportation is expected to be highly affected by modifications in the extent and thickness of sea-ice cover due to ocean warming. As a consequence, new navigable routes will be opened in the poles and shipping patterns will be globally modified. International transportation networks are also expected to be affected by relocation of seaports due to sea level rise, as well as by changes in circulation patterns (wind strength and wave height) and increased frequency of storms and other extreme events, which will influence the risk of shipping incidents (e.g., Becker et al., 2018; Heij & Knapp, 2015; Ng et al., 2018; Sardain et al., 2019).

Renewable energy

Ocean warming will open new areas for wind energy development, particularly in Arctic latitudes (due to declines in icing frequency and drifting sea ice), while sea level rise is expected to affect devices (wave or wind) that are moored in shallow waters. However, major impacts to marine renewable energy will come from changes in wind (speed and energy density) and wave patterns expected under future climate scenarios. Alongside, increased storm activity and other extreme events are likely to increase infrastructures survival risk and to limit maintenance procedures (e.g., Gernaat et al., 2021; Mróz et al., 2008; Sierra et al., 2017).

Seabed mining

Mining is directly vulnerable to extreme events (increased frequency of storms and hurricanes is expected to threaten mining infrastructures and increase danger at sea (limiting operational procedures). Infrastructures survival risk is of especial importance when hazardous substances are being drilled (e.g., oil products). Here, damaged infrastructures may represent major environmental disasters with widespread long-lasting effects. Mining will also be affected by the opening of new areas due to ocean warming, with corresponding social and ecological challenges (e.g., Edwards & Evans, 2017; Girard & Fisher, 2018; Ismail et al., 2014; Petrick et al., 2017).

A Sankey diagram depicting connections between marine issues like acidification, warming, and sea-level rise, with solutions for climate-smart marine spatial planning such as protecting climate refugia and decreasing emissions.

Fig. 8.1 Sankey diagram representing the links between (A) climate-related drivers of change, (B) key uses of the ocean space, and (C) climate adaptation and mitigation actions supported by applying climate-smart solutions to marine spatial planning (MSP ).2

It is clear from Figure 8.1 that not all ocean uses will be affected in the same way, some being globally more sensitive to a changing ocean (e.g., fisheries, tourism ) than others (e.g., renewable energy, mining ). At the same time, we acknowledge that there will be considerable regional variations, as the same ocean use will have different socioeconomic importance and will be differently affected by climate factors depending on social, economic and geographical contexts (Frazão Santos et al., 2016). Finally, we need to acknowledge both “affected and affecting parties”, that is, uses that have impacts on impact ecosystems or ecosystem flows, and those that depend on them.

Because allocating the distribution of ocean uses is at the core of MSP , together with managing conflicts and fostering compatibilities among such uses, MSP will be strongly affected by a changing climate—both directly and indirectly, at multiple scales and to varying degrees (Figure 8.2 and 8.3) (Frazão Santos et al., 2020).

Four-panel diagram presenting marine spatial planning scenarios: present situation, climate action, species redistribution, and combined strategies. Each panel illustrates areas designated for aquaculture, marine protection, and renewable energy.

Fig. 8.2 Three imagined future spatial scenarios showcase how climate-related shifts and changing conditions may affect marine spatial plans.3

Illustrated comic strip highlighting challenges in marine conservation, including species shifting due to climate change and the need for flexible management approaches.

Fig. 8.3 Cartoons illustrating some of the challenges of adaptive, climate-smart marine spatial planning. The need for (a) dynamic conservation areas that change in space and time in response to changes in marine species and habitats, and (b) adaptive law and governance that respond to species on the move. (c) Multiple uses moving to previously unexploited areas. Cartoons by visual artist Bas Köhler (www.studiobaskohler.nl) originally published at PICES (2018) and Frazão Santos et al. (2020).

But the impacts of climate change will not act alone. They will be combined with local human stressors deriving from multiple human activities, both from terrestrial and marine origins, giving place to additive, synergistic, or antagonistic effects in marine ecosystems (Coll et al., 2020; Gissi et al., 2021; Stockbridge et al., 2020). A recent study reviewed these combined effects (Gissi et al., 2021), depicting over 50 local human stressors (e.g., land-based pollution , marine litter, ocean mining , industrial fisheries ) and almost 30 climate-related factors (e.g., ocean acidification , sea level rise , temperature changes). Multiple combinations were considered, and results suggested that combined effects were context-dependent and variable among and within ecosystems. The study also showed that results vary with the level of ecological complexity. For example, while climate change generally intensifies the effects of local stressors at the species level, at the level of both trophic groups and ecosystems it can either intensify or mitigate the effects of local stressors—depending on the environmental conditions and the trophic groups involved (Gissi et al., 2021).

While understanding these combined effects can be complex, such understanding is fundamental to inform sustainable MSP processes. As stated in the IPCC special report on the ocean and the cryosphere (IPCC , 2019), there are medium levels of confidence that climate-induced changes in the ocean will “occur on spatial and temporal scales that may not align within existing governance structures and practices”. There is thus a need for transformative governance, that is, approaches that are “integrative, inclusive, adaptive and pluralist” and address both the direct and indirect drivers of sustainability “including through transdisciplinary research and knowledge coproduction” (Lombard et al., 2023). At the same time, there is a pressing need to empower local communities (by co-developing and co-creating visions, knowledge, capacities, and solutions) to overcome drivers of unsustainability—and sustainable climate-smart MSP can play an important role in such transformations.

Moving towards adaptive, climate-smart MSP

It has been advocated that, when developed with explicit climate-related considerations, MSP can notably contribute to minimizing climate impacts, support adaptation actions and play a role in climate mitigation (Frazão Santos et al., 2020) (Box 8.2 and Figure 8.1). By contrast, excluding climate effects from the MSP agenda would certainly lead to plans that are maladaptive and inefficient in sustaining marine ecosystems and their use under climate change (Frazão Santos et al., 2020). Recent studies also show that while providing substantial benefits, climate-smart ocean plans may require a few trade-offs (Pinsky et al., 2020). Authors showed that myopic “present-only” plans (i.e., considering only the current geographic distribution of species) suffered substantial declines in effectiveness when evaluated against projections of future species habitat distributions. By contrast, proactive plans developed to meet conservation, fishing, and energy goals under both current and future species habitat distributions included only marginally more area (0% to 7%), representing small opportunity costs (Pinsky et al., 2020). As MSP operates in a changing ocean, properly addressing and integrating climate effects is therefore vital, not only to support a healthy ocean but to keep plans viable, relevant, and useful in the long term.

To date, climate change has been neglected as a key factor in the majority of MSP initiatives, with only few plans addressing its impacts in an operational way (Gissi et al., 2019; Rilov et al., 2020). While this might be the case for a variety of reasons (e.g., jurisdictional frameworks, initial costs, uncertainty), several pathways have already been pointed out as potential solutions to climate-proofing MSP (Frazão Santos et al., 2020).

In the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, for example, climate change is considered throughout the entire planning process, from setting planning objectives to monitoring (Rilov et al., 2020). In the Netherlands, sand extraction for coastal defense against sea level rise is a priority (climate adaptation), climate effects on fishing and aquaculture are being considered (re-distribution of species, fishing quotas, opportunities and threats with new species appearing), space is being allocated to wind energy and carbon storage (supporting mitigation), and weather extremes and rising sea levels will be taken into account when installing turbines. In the United Kingdom, MSP is also expected to help to mitigate climate change, and to support the implementation of adaptation measures. For example, MSP supports the diversification of the fishing industry to increase resilience , manage risks and maximize opportunities under a changing climate; and flexibility in planning is ensured by supporting boundary changes to improve resilience of MPAs when there is evidence that protected resources are moving or changing due to climate change (Rilov et al., 2020).

It is clear from these examples that a combination of key approaches is needed (Figure 8.4 and Box 8.2): first, knowledge of climate impacts is integrated to support the development of robust marine spatial plans; second, knowledge is used to take measures that support climate adaptation and mitigation actions; third, MSP is designed in ways that ensure adaptability and flexibility in the planning process itself. While these approaches (integrating climate knowledge, taking relevant actions, and promoting flexibility) are closely linked, they are not one and the same, and must be simultaneously pursued to effectively support climate-smart MSP (Figure 8.4 and Box 8.2).

Circular infographic on climate-smart marine spatial planning, featuring strategies like modelling tools, risk analysis, dynamic management, and adaptive governance for mitigating climate impacts.

Fig. 8.4 Climate-smart solutions for marine spatial planning (MSP ).4

Box 2. Implementing climate-smart solutions for Marine Spatial Planning

I. Integrating knowledge on climate impacts

Several mapping and modelling tools can be used to identify changes in ecosystem goods and services, and related human activities, over space and time. These can range from sectoral ones focused on a particular activity – such as aquaculture, shipping, or renewable energy (e.g., Froehlich et al., 2018; Pınarbaşı et al., 2019; Queirós et al., 2016; Sardain et al., 2019) – to more comprehensive, integrated ones. The latter include, for example, the Symphony tool or the ACCESS Program, designed specifically to support MSP in Sweden and in the Arctic, respectively (Edwards & Evans, 2017; Hammar et al., 2020). The benefits of using species distribution modelling to identify future areas to be included in MSP has also been recently demonstrated, and play a very important role in designing climate-smart ocean plans(Pinsky et al., 2020).

Knowledge on where the consequences of climate-induced spatial-temporal changes are most significant is also vital to inform MSP design under a changing ocean. This allows for the identification of key problematic areas, where climate adaptation and mitigation actions will be most needed. Practical examples of risk and vulnerability analyses include the analysis of social-ecological vulnerability of small-scale fisheries in Moorea (Thiault et al., 2018), the assessment of cumulative risk of human activities in two planning regions in the United States (Wyatt et al., 2017), or the vulnerability of MSP and the blue economy to climate change in European coastal countries (Fernandes, 2021).

Results from all these analyses can be further used to support the development of sea-use scenarios and visioning processes in MSP, anticipating related conflicts and opportunities and allowing for more informed decision-making (Ehler & Douvere, 2009; Rilov et al., 2020). For example, in the Netherlands spatial-use scenarios were developed and integrated with alternative sea level rise scenarios, while the spatial vision experiment of Flanders Bays aimed to ensure protection against sea level rise (Ehler & Douvere, 2009; Rilov et al., 2020). Another example pertains to the western tropical Pacific Ocean, where optimistic and catastrophic climate scenarios were developed by stakeholders while establishing visions for MSP (Littaye et al., 2016).

II. Supporting climate adaptation and mitigation actions

Climate adaptation

When developed with explicit climate-related considerations, marine spatial planning can notably contribute to minimize climate impacts, and play an important role in supporting climate adaptation. First, MSP can provide for an integrated, cross-sectoral, systems approach to manage ocean use (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). Such approach is fundamental to deliver a holistic view of the management area, which is in turn essential to support climate adaptation actions, that is the adjustment of a system to current or expected climate impacts in order to increase its resilience and reduce adverse effects (IPCC, 2019, 2022).

Second, as human activities can be spatially managed through MSP to control local human stressors and pressures (e.g., pollution, over-fishing, habitat loss), MSP can support marine ecosystems resilience by regulating exacerbating effects from the combination of climate impacts and other local human stressors (Gissi et al., 2021). For example, spatially managing fisheries can help to counteract climate-related effects by reducing the risk of stock collapse (Voss et al., 2019), or by controlling catches on climate-induced shifting commercial species (Pinsky et al., 2020).

MSP can also support ecosystems resilience by allocating space to the protection of important marine species and habitats (Vaughan & Agardy, 2020), or by identifying and protecting areas that are relatively buffered from climate impacts, known as climate-change refugia (Johnson & Kenchington, 2019; Morelli et al., 2020). Indeed, including climate-change refugia in ocean plans has been identified as a promising approach to minimize climate impacts (Rilov et al., 2020).

Another pathway on how MSP can contribute to climate adaptation is by empowering human populations and increasing their social resilience to climate change. There is a need for transformative governance, and a greater empowerment of local communities to overcome identified challenges from climate change (IPCC, 2019). MSP can contribute to the latter by raising awareness on climate impacts, and fostering stakeholder’s participation in identifying solutions (Littaye et al., 2016; Noble et al., 2019).

Climate mitigation

MSP can also contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, to climate mitigation. One of the ways it can do so is by supporting the expansion of marine renewable energy – promoting a more efficient allocation of space to the installation of wind, wave, and current energy developments, and decreasing conflicts and fostering compatibilities with other maritime activities – while controlling its environmental impacts (Kyriazi et al., 2016; Schupp et al., 2021; Yates & Bradshaw, 2018).

MSP can also contribute to climate mitigation by supporting blue carbon capture and storage (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). This can be done by allocating space to the conservation of blue carbon ecosystems, such as seagrass beds or kelp forests (Hoegh-Guldberg & et al., 2019; Smale et al., 2018), or by designating areas for ocean-based carbon dioxide removal initiatives (Ocean Visions, 2021; World Resources Institute, 2020).

Finally, as an area-based management tool, MSP could prioritize the attribution of spatial permits to ocean uses and activities that use eco-efficient technologies and power sources that tend toward zero emissions (Frazão Santos et al., 2020). Indeed, recent research highlights the potential for developing new propellers for shipping based on renewable energy (e.g., wind, hydrogen), or using alternative fuels and propulsion systems in fishing vessels (Cutcher, 2020; Gabrielii & Jafarzadeh, 2020; Julià et al., 2020). Ultimately, MSP could even limit the available space to polluting activities that do not engage in decreasing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions (Frazão Santos et al., 2020).

III. Promoting flexibility and adaptability

Using near real-time data, dynamic ocean management allows for the designation of management areas whose boundaries change in space and time in response to shifts in ocean resources and ocean uses (Maxwell et al., 2015, 2020) (Fig. 4). It provides flexibility, promotes increased adequacy and efficiency in ocean use (by supporting the development of human activities in more appropriate places) and narrows spatial-temporal requirements. Practical examples tend to be sectoral, such as fisheries management in the United States and Australia, offshore aquaculture operations in Tasmania, marine mammal protection in Canada and the United States, or mobile protected areas in the High Seas (e.g., Craig, 2012; Hazen et al., 2018; Maxwell et al., 2015, 2020).

Another way to foster flexibility is through anticipatory zoning. The a priori allocation of areas to particular ocean uses in the future (or their exclusion) in anticipation of climate effects allows responsible entities to avoid political and legal problems, and minimize conflicts beforehand (Coleman et al., 2017; Craig, 2012). For example, particular areas in the Arctic Ocean were closed to commercial fishing in anticipation of sea-ice loss, and preferred sand extraction zones were established in the Netherlands to support the protection of low-lying coastal areas against sea level rise (Edwards & Evans, 2017; Ehler & Douvere, 2009).

Other pathways include broader adaptive management and governance frameworks, where actions and strategies are continuously revised based on results that are obtained through performance monitoring and evaluation(Ehler, 2014; Stelzenmüller et al., 2021). Implementing these adaptive frameworks, however, implies the ability to incorporate change in governance and jurisdictional frameworks, which is not always straightforward (Craig et al., 2017). Still, a number of MSP initiatives have already undertaken one or more revision processes thus effectively completing the adaptive management cycle (e.g., Australia, Belgium, China) (Frazão Santos et al., 2020).

For example, species distribution modeling can determine that certain fish stocks will disappear from a planning area, causing the potential collapse of a particular fishery (Pinsky et al., 2018) (Step 1). Based on such knowledge, MSP may (or may not) take measures to foster adaptation mechanisms (Step 2), such as highlighting the need to engage fishermen in alternative livelihoods and allocating space to them (Step 3) —thus supporting social resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change (Thiault et al., 2020). Similarly, an analysis of the risk of coastal flooding can identify particularly sensitive areas, where no infrastructures should be installed (Step 1). Climate-smart MSP could further designate such areas to the development of nature-based solutions (e.g., mangroves or reefs), which not only minimize the risk of flooding and sea level rise , but also support carbon absorption (Menéndez et al., 2020; UNEP, 2014) (Steps 2 and 3).

In practice, solutions to integrate knowledge on climate change impacts into MSP include: (1) modeling and mapping tools, (2) risk and vulnerability assessments, and (3) sea-use scenarios (Box 8.2 and Figure 8.4). These solutions can be integrated into the planning process in particular when defining and analyzing future conditions (Step 6 of the UNESCO guide on MSP ), when developing the zoning plan (within Step 7), and during monitoring and evaluation stages (Step 9) (Ehler & Douvere, 2009).

As for promoting flexibility in planning, a number of practical solutions can also be implemented, namely: (1) dynamic ocean management, (2) anticipatory zoning, or (3) adaptive management and governance (Frazão Santos et al., 2020) (Box 8.2 and Figure 8.4). These should be integrated into the planning process from the very beginning, when organizing the process through pre-planning (e.g., setting boundaries, defining objectives and goals, developing contingency plans; Step 3 of the UNESCO guide on MSP ), and especially when adapting the entire marine management process (Step 10) (Ehler & Douvere, 2009).

Climate adaptation and mitigation actions that can be supported through MSP range from measures to address ecosystem resilience , social resilience , the expansion of marine renewable energy developments, blue carbon capture and storage, or the use of alternative power sources in ocean uses such as shipping and fishing (Box 8.2 and Figure 8.1).

Final considerations

While the need to integrate climate change is far from being sufficiently considered and addressed in existing marine spatial plans, the benefits of developing MSP with “climate change in mind” are becoming increasingly evident (Frazão Santos et al., 2020; Pinsky et al., 2020; UNESCO and European Commission, 2022).

Since the ocean is changing, revisiting the role of marine conservation in MSP is also essential to support a healthy ocean and sustainable economic growth. MSP must prioritize ocean health objectives, understand ecological processes that support the delivery of ecosystem goods and services , recognize interlinkages, and implement suitable monitoring programs to evaluate not only environmental changes, but changes in human activities in the long-term (Rilov et al., 2020; Stelzenmüller et al., 2021). Indeed, the integration of climate-related knowledge into MSP will be a continuous, never-ending process (as planning itself is intended to be), requiring periodic assessments, re-visioning, and revised (adaptive) management—as new knowledge is acquired, or unforeseeable situations and unexpected challenges arise. Because climate-related impacts are accelerating change, it is also expected that the periodicity of such revisions and amendments will need to be more frequent.

Finally, as climate change affects all ecosystems on the planet (IPCC , 2019, 2022), the ocean will not be affected by marine drivers of change alone (e.g., ocean warming and acidification ). It will also be strongly impacted by the degradation of linked habitats and ecological communities from transitional, coastal, freshwater, and land environments (e.g., climate change will affect run-off and hydrological balances, pollution inputs, and human demographic pressures in coastal areas, affecting ocean uses and the ability to plan for them sustainably). To be truly sustainable and climate-smart, MSP thus needs to adopt a true ecosystem-based management approach with a “systems-view”, allowing decision-makers to perceive the “full picture” of what the ocean entails. This type of truly transformative thinking, and acting, is an imperative if we are to sustain oceans and secure human wellbeing in a climate-changed future.

As US Secretary of State John Kerry said, “You cannot protect the oceans without solving climate change and you can’t solve climate change without protecting the oceans” (Kerry, 2021).

Acknowledgements

C.F.S. acknowledges funding from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology under grant agreements No 2020.03704.CEECIND, PTDC/CTA-AMB/30226/2017, 2022.09067.PTDC, UIDB/04292/2020 and LA/P/0069/2020. E.G. acknowledges funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 893614-4. The study reflects only the authors’ view. The Research Executive Agency and the European Commission are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

References

Agardy, T. (2010). Ocean zoning: Making marine management more effective. Earthscan.

Agardy, T. (2018). Marine Protected Areas and Marine Spatial Planning. In Routledge handbook of ocean resources and management.

Ainsworth, T. D., Heron, S. F., Ortiz, J. C., Mumby, P. J., Grech, A., Ogawa, D., Eakin, C. M., & Leggat, W. (2016). Climate change disables coral bleaching protection on the Great Barrier Reef. Science, 352(6283), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac7125

Allison, E., Kurien, J., Ota, Y., & et al. (2020). The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet. World Resources Institute.

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

Barange, M., Bahri, T., Beveridge, M., Cochrane, K., Funge-Smith, S., & Poulain, F. (2018). Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture: Synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options. FAO Technical Paper 627. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Barange, M., Merino, G., Blanchard, J. L., Scholtens, J., Harle, J., Allison, E. H., Allen, J. I., Holt, J., & Jennings, S. (2014). Impacts of climate change on marine ecosystem production in societies dependent on fisheries. Nature Climate Change, 4(3), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2119

Becker, A., Ng, A. K. Y., McEvoy, D., & Mullett, J. (2018). Implications of climate change for shipping: Ports and supply chains. WIREs Climate Change, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.508

Coleman, M. A., Cetina‐Heredia, P., Roughan, M., Feng, M., Sebille, E., & Kelaher, B. P. (2017). Anticipating changes to future connectivity within a network of marine protected areas. Global Change Biology, 23(9), 3533–3542. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13634

Coll, M., Steenbeek, J., Pennino, M. G., Buszowski, J., Kaschner, K., Lotze, H. K., Rousseau, Y., Tittensor, D. P., Walters, C., Watson, R. A., & Christensen, V. (2020). Advancing Global Ecological Modeling Capabilities to Simulate Future Trajectories of Change in Marine Ecosystems. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 567877. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.567877

Craig, R. K. (2012). Ocean governance for the 21st century: Making marine zoning climate change adaptable. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 36(2), 305–350.

Craig, R. K., Ruhl, J. B., Brown, E. D., & Williams, B. K. (2017). A proposal for amending administrative law to facilitate adaptive management. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 074018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7037

Cutcher, N. (2020). Winds of Trade: Passage to Zero‐Emission Shipping. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 79(3), 967–979. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12331

Day, J. C. (2002). Zoning—Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45(2–3), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(02)00052-2

Duarte, C. M., Agusti, S., Barbier, E., Britten, G. L., Castilla, J. C., Gattuso, J.-P., Fulweiler, R. W., Hughes, T. P., Knowlton, N., Lovelock, C. E., Lotze, H. K., Predragovic, M., Poloczanska, E., Roberts, C., & Worm, B. (2020). Rebuilding marine life. Nature, 580(7801), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2146-7

Edwards, R., & Evans, A. (2017). The challenges of marine spatial planning in the Arctic: Results from the ACCESS programme. Ambio, 46(S3), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0959-x

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

Ehler, C. N. (2021). Two decades of progress in Marine Spatial Planning. Marine Policy, 132, 104134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104134

Ehler, C. N., & Douvere, F. (2009). Marine Spatial Planning: A step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme, UNESCO.

EU. (2014). Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014, Establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning. European Union.

Fernandes, M. (2021). The impact of climate change on marine spatial planning and the blue economy: Vulnerability assessment and implications for a sustainable use of the ocean services. Master of Science dissertation, University of Lisbon.

Flannery, W., Toonen, H., Jay, S., & Vince, J. (2020). A critical turn in marine spatial planning. Maritime Studies, 19(3), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00198-8

Foley, M. M., Halpern, B. S., Micheli, F., Armsby, M. H., Caldwell, M. R., Crain, C. M., Prahler, E., Rohr, N., Sivas, D., Beck, M. W., Carr, M. H., Crowder, L. B., Emmett Duffy, J., Hacker, S. D., McLeod, K. L., Palumbi, S. R., Peterson, C. H., Regan, H. M., Ruckelshaus, M. H., … Steneck, R. S. (2010). Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 34(5), 955–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.001

Fraschetti, S., Pipitone, C., Mazaris, A. D., Rilov, G., Badalamenti, F., Bevilacqua, S., Claudet, J., Carić, H., Dahl, K., D’Anna, G., Daunys, D., Frost, M., Gissi, E., Göke, C., Goriup, P., Guarnieri, G., Holcer, D., Lazar, B., Mackelworth, P., … Katsanevakis, S. (2018). Light and Shade in Marine Conservation Across European and Contiguous Seas. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00420

Frazão Santos, C., Agardy, T., Andrade, F., Barange, M., Crowder, L. B., Ehler, C. N., Orbach, M. K., & Rosa, R. (2016). Ocean planning in a changing climate. Nature Geoscience, 9(10), 730–730. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2821

Frazão Santos, C., Agardy, T., Andrade, F., Calado, H., Crowder, L. B., Ehler, C. N., García-Morales, S., Gissi, E., Halpern, B. S., Orbach, M. K., Pörtner, H.-O., & Rosa, R. (2020). Integrating climate change in ocean planning. Nature Sustainability, 3(7), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0513-x

Frazão Santos, C., Agardy, T., Andrade, F., Crowder, L. B., Ehler, C. N., & Orbach, M. K. (2021). Major challenges in developing marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 132, 103248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.032

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

Froehlich, H. E., Gentry, R. R., & Halpern, B. S. (2018). Global change in marine aquaculture production potential under climate change. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(11), 1745–1750. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0669-1

Gabrielii, C. H., & Jafarzadeh, S. (2020). Alternative fuels and propulsion systems for fishing vessels. SINTEF Energi AS.

Galappaththi, E. K., Ichien, S. T., Hyman, A. A., Aubrac, C. J., & Ford, J. D. (2020). Climate change adaptation in aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture, 12(4), 2160–2176. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12427

Gattuso, J.-P., Magnan, A., Billé, R., Cheung, W. W. L., Howes, E. L., Joos, F., Allemand, D., Bopp, L., Cooley, S. R., Eakin, C. M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Kelly, R. P., Pörtner, H.-O., Rogers, A. D., Baxter, J. M., Laffoley, D., Osborn, D., Rankovic, A., Rochette, J., … Turley, C. (2015). Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO 2 emissions scenarios. Science, 349(6243), aac4722. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4722

Gernaat, D. E. H. J., de Boer, H. S., Daioglou, V., Yalew, S. G., Müller, C., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2021). Climate change impacts on renewable energy supply. Nature Climate Change, 11(2), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00949-9

Girard, F., & Fisher, C. R. (2018). Long-term impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on deep-sea corals detected after seven years of monitoring. Biological Conservation, 225, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.06.028

Gissi, E., Fraschetti, S., & Micheli, F. (2019). Incorporating change in marine spatial planning: A review. Environmental Science & Policy, 92, 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.002

Gissi, E., Maes, F., Kyriazi, Z., Ruiz-Frau, A., Santos, C. F., Neumann, B., Quintela, A., Alves, F. L., Borg, S., Chen, W., da Luz Fernandes, M., Hadjimichael, M., Manea, E., Marques, M., Platjouw, F. M., Portman, M. E., Sousa, L. P., Bolognini, L., Flannery, W., … Unger, S. (2022). Contributions of marine area-based management tools to the UN sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 330, 129910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129910

Gissi, E., Manea, E., Mazaris, A. D., Fraschetti, S., Almpanidou, V., Bevilacqua, S., Coll, M., Guarnieri, G., Lloret-Lloret, E., Pascual, M., Petza, D., Rilov, G., Schonwald, M., Stelzenmüller, V., & Katsanevakis, S. (2021). A review of the combined effects of climate change and other local human stressors on the marine environment. Science of The Total Environment, 755, 142564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142564

Gormley, K. S. G., Hull, A. D., Porter, J. S., Bell, M. C., & Sanderson, W. G. (2015). Adaptive management, international co-operation and planning for marine conservation hotspots in a changing climate. Marine Policy, 53, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.017

Halpern, B. S., Frazier, M., Afflerbach, J., Lowndes, J. S., Micheli, F., O’Hara, C., Scarborough, C., & Selkoe, K. A. (2019). Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s ocean. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 11609. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47201-9

Halpern, B. S., Frazier, M., Potapenko, J., Casey, K. S., Koenig, K., Longo, C., Lowndes, J. S., Rockwood, R. C., Selig, E. R., Selkoe, K. A., & Walbridge, S. (2015). Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nature Communications, 6(1), 7615. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8615

Hammar, L., Molander, S., Pålsson, J., Schmidtbauer Crona, J., Carneiro, G., Johansson, T., Hume, D., Kågesten, G., Mattsson, D., Törnqvist, O., Zillén, L., Mattsson, M., Bergström, U., Perry, D., Caldow, C., & Andersen, J. H. (2020). Cumulative impact assessment for ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Science of The Total Environment, 734, 139024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139024

Hauser, D. D. W., Laidre, K. L., & Stern, H. L. (2018). Vulnerability of Arctic marine mammals to vessel traffic in the increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(29), 7617–7622. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803543115

Hazen, E. L., Scales, K. L., Maxwell, S. M., Briscoe, D. K., Welch, H., Bograd, S. J., Bailey, H., Benson, S. R., Eguchi, T., Dewar, H., Kohin, S., Costa, D. P., Crowder, L. B., & Lewison, R. L. (2018). A dynamic ocean management tool to reduce bycatch and support sustainable fisheries. Science Advances, 4(5), eaar3001. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar3001

Heij, C., & Knapp, S. (2015). Effects of wind strength and wave height on ship incident risk: Regional trends and seasonality. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 37, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.04.016

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

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

IPCC. (2022). Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Ismail, Z., Kong, K. K., Othman, S. Z., Law, K. H., Khoo, S. Y., Ong, Z. C., & Shirazi, S. M. (2014). Evaluating accidents in the offshore drilling of petroleum: Regional picture and reducing impact. Measurement, 51, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2014.01.027

Johnson, D. E., & Kenchington, E. L. (2019). Should potential for climate change refugia be mainstreamed into the criteria for describing EBSAs? Conservation Letters, 12(4), e12634. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12634

Jones, A., & Phillips, M. (2018). Global climate change and coastal tourism: Recognizing problems, managing solutions, future expectations. CAB International.

Julià, E., Tillig, F., & Ringsberg, J. W. (2020). Concept Design and Performance Evaluation of a Fossil-Free Operated Cargo Ship with Unlimited Range. Sustainability, 12(16), 6609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166609

Katona, S., Polsenberg, J., Lowndes, J., Halpern, B. S., Pacheco, E., Mosher, L., Kilponen, A., Papacostas, K., Mora, A. G. G.-, Farmer, G., Mori, L., Andrews, O., Taei, S., & Carr, S. (2017). Navigating the seascape of ocean management: Waypoints on the voyage toward sustainable use [Preprint]. MarXiv. https://doi.org/10.31230/osf.io/79w2d

Katsanevakis, S., Coll, M., Fraschetti, S., Giakoumi, S., Goldsborough, D., Mačić, V., Mackelworth, P., Rilov, G., Stelzenmüller, V., Albano, P. G., Bates, A. E., Bevilacqua, S., Gissi, E., Hermoso, V., Mazaris, A. D., Pita, C., Rossi, V., Teff-Seker, Y., & Yates, K. (2020). Twelve Recommendations for Advancing Marine Conservation in European and Contiguous Seas. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 565968. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.565968

Keppel, G., Mokany, K., Wardell-Johnson, G. W., Phillips, B. L., Welbergen, J. A., & Reside, A. E. (2015). The capacity of refugia for conservation planning under climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(2), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1890/140055

Kerr, S., Johnson, K., & Side, J. C. (2014). Planning at the edge: Integrating across the land sea divide. Marine Policy, 47, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.023

Kerry, J. (2021). Special Guest Remarks at Ocean-climate Ambition Summit. Www.state.gov/special-guest-remarks-at-ocean-climate-ambition-summit/.

Kidd, S., Calado, H., Gee, K., Gilek, M., & Saunders, F. (2020). Marine Spatial Planning and sustainability: Examining the roles of integration - Scale, policies, stakeholders and knowledge. Ocean & Coastal Management, 191, 105182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105182

Kirkfeldt, T. S. (2019). An ocean of concepts: Why choosing between ecosystem-based management, ecosystem-based approach and ecosystem approach makes a difference. Marine Policy, 106, 103541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103541

Kyriazi, Z., Maes, F., & Degraer, S. (2016). Coexistence dilemmas in European marine spatial planning practices. The case of marine renewables and marine protected areas. Energy Policy, 97, 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.018

Kyriazi, Z., Maes, F., Rabaut, M., Vincx, M., & Degraer, S. (2013). The integration of nature conservation into the marine spatial planning process. Marine Policy, 38, 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.029

Littaye, A., Lardon, S., & Alloncle, N. (2016). Stakeholders’ collective drawing reveals significant differences in the vision of marine spatial planning of the western tropical Pacific. Ocean & Coastal Management, 130, 260–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.06.017

Lombard, M., Clifford-Holmes, J., Goodall, V., Snow, B., Truter, H., Vrancken, P., Jones, P. J. S., Cochrane, K., Flannery, W., Hicks, C., Gipperth, L., Allison, E. H., Diz, D., Peters, K., Erinosho, B., Levin, P., Holthus, P., Nube Szephegyi, M., Awad, A., Golo, H. & Morgera, E. Principles for transformative ocean governance. Nature Sustainability, 6, 1587–1599 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01210-9

MACBIO. (2018). Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Management in Pacific Island Countries. Http://macbio-pacific.info.

Maxwell, S. M., Gjerde, K. M., Conners, M. G., & Crowder, L. B. (2020). Mobile protected areas for biodiversity on the high seas. Science, 367(6475), 252–254. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz9327

Maxwell, S. M., Hazen, E. L., Lewison, R. L., Dunn, D. C., Bailey, H., Bograd, S. J., Briscoe, D. K., Fossette, S., Hobday, A. J., Bennett, M., Benson, S., Caldwell, M. R., Costa, D. P., Dewar, H., Eguchi, T., Hazen, L., Kohin, S., Sippel, T., & Crowder, L. B. (2015). Dynamic ocean management: Defining and conceptualizing real-time management of the ocean. Marine Policy, 58, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.014

Menéndez, P., Losada, I. J., Torres-Ortega, S., Narayan, S., & Beck, M. W. (2020). The Global Flood Protection Benefits of Mangroves. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 4404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61136-6

Merrie, A., & Olsson, P. (2014). An innovation and agency perspective on the emergence and spread of Marine Spatial Planning. Marine Policy, 44, 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.006

Morelli, T. L., Barrows, C. W., Ramirez, A. R., Cartwright, J. M., Ackerly, D. D., Eaves, T. D., Ebersole, J. L., Krawchuk, M. A., Letcher, B. H., Mahalovich, M. F., Meigs, G. W., Michalak, J. L., Millar, C. I., Quiñones, R. M., Stralberg, D., & Thorne, J. H. (2020). Climate‐change refugia: Biodiversity in the slow lane. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(5), 228–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2189

Mróz, A., Holnicki-Szulc, J., & Kärnä, T. (2008). Mitigation of ice loading on off-shore wind turbines: Feasibility study of a semi-active solution. Computers & Structures, 86(3–5), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2007.01.039

Ng, A. K. Y., Andrews, J., Babb, D., Lin, Y., & Becker, A. (2018). Implications of climate change for shipping: Opening the Arctic seas. WIREs Climate Change, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.507

Noble, M. M., Harasti, D., Pittock, J., & Doran, B. (2019). Linking the social to the ecological using GIS methods in marine spatial planning and management to support resilience: A review. Marine Policy, 108, 103657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103657

Ntona, M., & Morgera, E. (2018). Connecting SDG 14 with the other Sustainable Development Goals through marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 93, 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.06.020

Ocean Visions. (2021). Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal. www.oceanvisions.org/task-force-ocean-cdr.

Pecl, G. T., Araújo, M. B., Bell, J. D., Blanchard, J., Bonebrake, T. C., Chen, I.-C., Clark, T. D., Colwell, R. K., Danielsen, F., Evengård, B., Falconi, L., Ferrier, S., Frusher, S., Garcia, R. A., Griffis, R. B., Hobday, A. J., Janion-Scheepers, C., Jarzyna, M. A., Jennings, S., … Williams, S. E. (2017). Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science, 355(6332), eaai9214. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9214

Petrick, S., Riemann-Campe, K., Hoog, S., Growitsch, C., Schwind, H., Gerdes, R., & Rehdanz, K. (2017). Climate change, future Arctic Sea ice, and the competitiveness of European Arctic offshore oil and gas production on world markets. Ambio, 46(S3), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0957-z

PICES. (2018). The Effects of Climate Change on the World’s Oceans – ECCWO-2018 Cartoons. Https://meetings.pices.int/meetings/international/2018/climate-change.

Pinsky, M. L., Reygondeau, G., Caddell, R., Palacios-Abrantes, J., Spijkers, J., & Cheung, W. W. L. (2018). Preparing ocean governance for species on the move. Science, 360(6394), 1189–1191. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat2360

Pinsky, M. L., Rogers, L. A., Morley, J. W., & Frölicher, T. L. (2020). Ocean planning for species on the move provides substantial benefits and requires few trade-offs. Science Advances, 6(50), eabb8428. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb8428

Pınarbaşı, K., Galparsoro, I., Depellegrin, D., Bald, J., Pérez-Morán, G., & Borja, Á. (2019). A modelling approach for offshore wind farm feasibility with respect to ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Science of The Total Environment, 667, 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.268

Poloczanska, E. S., Burrows, M. T., Brown, C. J., García Molinos, J., Halpern, B. S., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Kappel, C. V., Moore, P. J., Richardson, A. J., Schoeman, D. S., & Sydeman, W. J. (2016). Responses of Marine Organisms to Climate Change across Oceans. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00062

Qiu, W., & Jones, P. J. S. (2013). The emerging policy landscape for marine spatial planning in Europe. Marine Policy, 39, 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.010

Queirós, A. M., Huebert, K. B., Keyl, F., Fernandes, J. A., Stolte, W., Maar, M., Kay, S., Jones, M. C., Hamon, K. G., Hendriksen, G., Vermard, Y., Marchal, P., Teal, L. R., Somerfield, P. J., Austen, M. C., Barange, M., Sell, A. F., Allen, I., & Peck, M. A. (2016). Solutions for ecosystem-level protection of ocean systems under climate change. Global Change Biology, 22(12), 3927–3936. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13423

Reid, G., Gurney-Smith, H., Marcogliese, D., Knowler, D., Benfey, T., Garber, A., Forster, I., Chopin, T., Brewer-Dalton, K., Moccia, R., Flaherty, M., Smith, C., & De Silva, S. (2019). Climate change and aquaculture: Considering biological response and resources. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 11, 569–602. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00332

Rilov, G., Fraschetti, S., Gissi, E., Pipitone, C., Badalamenti, F., Tamburello, L., Menini, E., Goriup, P., Mazaris, A. D., Garrabou, J., Benedetti‐Cecchi, L., Danovaro, R., Loiseau, C., Claudet, J., & Katsanevakis, S. (2020). A fast‐moving target: Achieving marine conservation goals under shifting climate and policies. Ecological Applications, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2009

Rutterford, L. A., Simpson, S. D., Jennings, S., Johnson, M. P., Blanchard, J. L., Schön, P.-J., Sims, D. W., Tinker, J., & Genner, M. J. (2015). Future fish distributions constrained by depth in warming seas. Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 569–573. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2607

Sampaio, E., Santos, C., Rosa, I. C., Ferreira, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Duarte, C. M., Levin, L. A., & Rosa, R. (2021). Impacts of hypoxic events surpass those of future ocean warming and acidification. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(3), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01370-3

Sardain, A., Sardain, E., & Leung, B. (2019). Global forecasts of shipping traffic and biological invasions to 2050. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0245-y

Schupp, M. F., Kafas, A., Buck, B. H., Krause, G., Onyango, V., Stelzenmüller, V., Davies, I., & Scott, B. E. (2021). Fishing within offshore wind farms in the North Sea: Stakeholder perspectives for multi-use from Scotland and Germany. Journal of Environmental Management, 279, 111762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111762

Scott, D., Hall, C. M., & Gössling, S. (2019). Global tourism vulnerability to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 77, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.05.007

Scott, D., Simpson, M. C., & Sim, R. (2012). The vulnerability of Caribbean coastal tourism to scenarios of climate change related sea level rise. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(6), 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.699063

Sierra, J. P., Casas-Prat, M., & Campins, E. (2017). Impact of climate change on wave energy resource: The case of Menorca (Spain). Renewable Energy, 101, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.08.060

Smale, D. A., Moore, P. J., Queirós, A. M., Higgs, N. D., & Burrows, M. T. (2018). Appreciating interconnectivity between habitats is key to blue carbon management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(2), 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1765

Somero, G. N. (2012). The Physiology of Global Change: Linking Patterns to Mechanisms. Annual Review of Marine Science, 4(1), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-120710-100935

Stelzenmüller, V., Coll, M., Cormier, R., Mazaris, A. D., Pascual, M., Loiseau, C., Claudet, J., Katsanevakis, S., Gissi, E., Evagelopoulos, A., Rumes, B., Degraer, S., Ojaveer, H., Moller, T., Giménez, J., Piroddi, C., Markantonatou, V., & Dimitriadis, C. (2020). Operationalizing risk-based cumulative effect assessments in the marine environment. Science of The Total Environment, 724, 138118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138118

Stelzenmüller, V., Cormier, R., Gee, K., Shucksmith, R., Gubbins, M., Yates, K. L., Morf, A., Nic Aonghusa, C., Mikkelsen, E., Tweddle, J. F., Pecceu, E., Kannen, A., & Clarke, S. A. (2021). Evaluation of marine spatial planning requires fit for purpose monitoring strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 278, 111545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111545

Stockbridge, J., Jones, A. R., & Gillanders, B. M. (2020). A meta-analysis of multiple stressors on seagrasses in the context of marine spatial cumulative impacts assessment. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 11934. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68801-w

Teng, X., Zhao, Q., Zhang, P., Liu, L., Dong, Y., Hu, H., Yue, Q., Ou, L., & Xu, W. (2019). Implementing marine functional zoning in China. Marine Policy, 103484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.055

Thiault, L., Gelcich, S., Marshall, N., Marshall, P., Chlous, F., & Claudet, J. (2020). Operationalizing vulnerability for social–ecological integration in conservation and natural resource management. Conservation Letters, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12677

Thiault, L., Marshall, P., Gelcich, S., Collin, A., Chlous, F., & Claudet, J. (2018). Space and time matter in social-ecological vulnerability assessments. Marine Policy, 88, 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.027

Tittensor, D. P., Beger, M., Boerder, K., Boyce, D. G., Cavanagh, R. D., Cosandey-Godin, A., Crespo, G. O., Dunn, D. C., Ghiffary, W., Grant, S. M., Hannah, L., Halpin, P. N., Harfoot, M., Heaslip, S. G., Jeffery, N. W., Kingston, N., Lotze, H. K., McGowan, J., McLeod, E., … Worm, B. (2019). Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation in the global ocean. Science Advances, 5(11), eaay9969. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay9969

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

Trouillet, B., & Jay, S. (2021). The complex relationships between marine protected areas and marine spatial planning: Towards an analytical framework. Marine Policy, 127, 104441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104441

UNEP. (2010). The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2. United Nations Environment Programme, Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

UNEP. (2014). The importance of mangroves to people: A call to action. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

UNEP, & GEF-STAP. (2014). Marine Spatial Planning in Practice – Transitioning from Planning to Implementation. An Analysis of Global Marine Spatial Planning Experiences. United Nations Environment Programme, Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility.

UNESCO. (2021). MSPglobal Program. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. www.mspglobal2030.org.

UNESCO and European Commission. (2022). Updated Joint Roadmap to accelerate Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning processes worldwide: MSProadmap (2022-2027). Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

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

Voss, R., Quaas, M. F., Stiasny, M. H., Hänsel, M., Stecher Justiniano Pinto, G. A., Lehmann, A., Reusch, T. B. H., & Schmidt, J. O. (2019). Ecological-economic sustainability of the Baltic cod fisheries under ocean warming and acidification. Journal of Environmental Management, 238, 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.105

White, C., Halpern, B. S., & Kappel, C. V. (2012). Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(12), 4696–4701. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114215109

World Resources Institute. (2020). Leveraging the Ocean’s Carbon Removal Potential. Www.wri.org/insights/leveraging-oceans-carbon-removal-potential.

Wyatt, K. H., Griffin, R., Guerry, A. D., Ruckelshaus, M., Fogarty, M., & Arkema, K. K. (2017). Habitat risk assessment for regional ocean planning in the U.S. Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. PLOS ONE, 12(12), e0188776. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188776

Yates, K. L., & Bradshaw, C. (2018). Offshore energy and marine spatial planning. Routledge.

1 Departamento de Biologia Animal, Ciências ULisboa, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6988-253X
2 Climate-related drivers will affect key ocean uses through multiple pathways; some uses will be globally more affected than others, as summarized in Box 8.1. Simultaneously, when managed through MSP, ocean uses can contribute to several actions that promote both climate adaptation and climate mitigation (C), as detailed in Box 8.2. To ensure the operationalization of these pathways and actions, MSP must be developed within a climate-smart framework, as highlighted in Section 4. Weighting of A-B pathways is based on direct impact estimates from Frazão-Santos et al. (2016). B-C pathways are equally weighted per ocean use.

3 Here, there is no proposed preferred spatial scenario; scenarios are meant to highlight a range of potential futures, emphasizing the need to integrate climate knowledge and consider the dynamic nature of the ocean (and its users) to the maximum possible extent. New potential overlaps and spatial conflicts need to be assessed along the evolving future to identify the solutions that better balance trade-offs and respond to planning objectives and the policy context. (a) Present situation: Imagined present spatial use of a marine management area, with a marine protected area (MPA ), aquaculture (AQ) and offshore renewable energy (ORE) developments, and a traffic separation scheme (TSS). (b) Scenario 1 “Climate action”: New areas are assigned for renewable energy development and carbon capture and storage to support climate mitigation goals. Based on new evidence, scientists also identify a new area as a climate refugium, which can be later designated as an MPA . These changes can lead to potential spatial conflicts between existing and intended uses; yet, new synergies can also arise depending on the type of use/technology/ecosystem (e.g., floating ORE plants may not impact benthic ecosystems; seaweed culture operations may have productivity spillovers to the neighboring carbon capture area). (c) Scenario 2 “Species redistribution”: Due to climate-induced shifts and changing ocean conditions, scientists anticipate that protected species will move beyond the boundaries of the existing MPA . The latter may lead to the loss of MPA effectiveness and potential new conflicts with maritime transportation. (d) Scenario 3 “Climate action & Species redistribution”: In this imagined future, new uses are established, a potential climate refugium is identified, and protected species are projected to shift. Potential future conflicts are, thus, aggravated, highlighting the need for climate-smart marine spatial plans.

4 The climate-smart MSP cycle needs to articulate two main phases, the integration of knowledge on climate-related impacts into the planning process (e.g., condition review, scenario planning), and the subsequent promotion of adaptive and flexible planning (e.g., dynamic zoning, adaptive governance ) to respond to identified changes. Between these two cyclically interconnected phases, sits the opportunity to support and implement climate adaptation and mitigation measures (Box 8.2 and Fig. 8.1). For example, knowledge gathered in the first phase can be used to establish the need to protect climate refugia, or the designation of areas for blue carbon ecosystems, while adaptive mechanisms can support the implementation of such actions, for instance through anticipatory zoning.

8. Marine spatial planning in the age of climate change

Catarina Frazão Santos,1 Tundi Agardy, and Elena Gissi

Making ocean use truly sustainable

Combined effects of climate change on marine ecosystems, ocean uses and ocean planning

Moving towards adaptive, climate-smart MSP

Final considerations

Acknowledgements

References

8 . Marine spatial planning in the age of climate change

Combined effects of climate change on marine ecosystems, ocean uses and
ocean planning