Comparing Public Participation in Coastal and Marine Planning in the Arctic: Lessons from Iceland and Norway

Amid a changing global climate, Northern coastal communities face a variety of challenges to their livelihoods, which are dependent on marine resources. Marine spatial planning (MSP) provides opportunities for cooperation between authorities, stakeholders, and the public to ensure sustainable marine...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Coasts
Main Author: Maria Wilke
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3390/coasts3040021
https://doaj.org/article/d441ab9fc21f4b8fb70c5462494c285f
id ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:d441ab9fc21f4b8fb70c5462494c285f
record_format openpolar
spelling ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:d441ab9fc21f4b8fb70c5462494c285f 2024-01-21T10:04:16+01:00 Comparing Public Participation in Coastal and Marine Planning in the Arctic: Lessons from Iceland and Norway Maria Wilke 2023-11-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.3390/coasts3040021 https://doaj.org/article/d441ab9fc21f4b8fb70c5462494c285f EN eng MDPI AG https://www.mdpi.com/2673-964X/3/4/21 https://doaj.org/toc/2673-964X doi:10.3390/coasts3040021 2673-964X https://doaj.org/article/d441ab9fc21f4b8fb70c5462494c285f Coasts, Vol 3, Iss 4, Pp 345-369 (2023) marine spatial planning coastal zone planning public participation community engagement marine governance blue justice Environmental sciences GE1-350 Harbors and coast protective works. Coastal engineering. Lighthouses TC203-380 Geography (General) G1-922 article 2023 ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.3390/coasts3040021 2023-12-24T01:37:34Z Amid a changing global climate, Northern coastal communities face a variety of challenges to their livelihoods, which are dependent on marine resources. Marine spatial planning (MSP) provides opportunities for cooperation between authorities, stakeholders, and the public to ensure sustainable marine management. Public participation is a crucial element of coastal and marine planning for its long-term democratic legitimacy and sustainability. However, the process of MSP is often wrought with conflict and challenges of involving stakeholders and the public in decisions concerning an often-contested marine space. Whereas coastal zone planning (CZP) is well established in Norway and a reiteration of previous CZP was conducted 2020–23, MSP is new to Iceland, and has only recently been launched with its first pilot plans in 2019. This study investigates how participation in coastal and marine planning processes compare between Iceland and Norway and what lessons can be shared between them. Data were collected from two case studies in the Tromsø region in Norway and the Westfjords of Iceland through analysis of planning documentation, literature review, as well as participant observation in the Westfjords and 11 semi-structured interviews across both case studies. The results show that public participation is formally integral to both processes but, in practice, varies considerably. Both planning processes are driven by the expansion of the aquaculture industry, and a variety of issues faced during the planning process are similar. In Norway, public participation is politically desired and guided by a participation strategy emphasising synergies between expert and local knowledge. In the Tromsø region, meaningful public participation varied across municipalities and issues regarding Indigenous participation remain. In Iceland, there is little evident political expectation of public engagement, and the process is characterised by a passive approach to participation that aims to inform the public but does not include ... Article in Journal/Newspaper Arctic Iceland Tromsø Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles Arctic Norway Tromsø Coasts 3 4 345 369
institution Open Polar
collection Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles
op_collection_id ftdoajarticles
language English
topic marine spatial planning
coastal zone planning
public participation
community engagement
marine governance
blue justice
Environmental sciences
GE1-350
Harbors and coast protective works. Coastal engineering. Lighthouses
TC203-380
Geography (General)
G1-922
spellingShingle marine spatial planning
coastal zone planning
public participation
community engagement
marine governance
blue justice
Environmental sciences
GE1-350
Harbors and coast protective works. Coastal engineering. Lighthouses
TC203-380
Geography (General)
G1-922
Maria Wilke
Comparing Public Participation in Coastal and Marine Planning in the Arctic: Lessons from Iceland and Norway
topic_facet marine spatial planning
coastal zone planning
public participation
community engagement
marine governance
blue justice
Environmental sciences
GE1-350
Harbors and coast protective works. Coastal engineering. Lighthouses
TC203-380
Geography (General)
G1-922
description Amid a changing global climate, Northern coastal communities face a variety of challenges to their livelihoods, which are dependent on marine resources. Marine spatial planning (MSP) provides opportunities for cooperation between authorities, stakeholders, and the public to ensure sustainable marine management. Public participation is a crucial element of coastal and marine planning for its long-term democratic legitimacy and sustainability. However, the process of MSP is often wrought with conflict and challenges of involving stakeholders and the public in decisions concerning an often-contested marine space. Whereas coastal zone planning (CZP) is well established in Norway and a reiteration of previous CZP was conducted 2020–23, MSP is new to Iceland, and has only recently been launched with its first pilot plans in 2019. This study investigates how participation in coastal and marine planning processes compare between Iceland and Norway and what lessons can be shared between them. Data were collected from two case studies in the Tromsø region in Norway and the Westfjords of Iceland through analysis of planning documentation, literature review, as well as participant observation in the Westfjords and 11 semi-structured interviews across both case studies. The results show that public participation is formally integral to both processes but, in practice, varies considerably. Both planning processes are driven by the expansion of the aquaculture industry, and a variety of issues faced during the planning process are similar. In Norway, public participation is politically desired and guided by a participation strategy emphasising synergies between expert and local knowledge. In the Tromsø region, meaningful public participation varied across municipalities and issues regarding Indigenous participation remain. In Iceland, there is little evident political expectation of public engagement, and the process is characterised by a passive approach to participation that aims to inform the public but does not include ...
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Maria Wilke
author_facet Maria Wilke
author_sort Maria Wilke
title Comparing Public Participation in Coastal and Marine Planning in the Arctic: Lessons from Iceland and Norway
title_short Comparing Public Participation in Coastal and Marine Planning in the Arctic: Lessons from Iceland and Norway
title_full Comparing Public Participation in Coastal and Marine Planning in the Arctic: Lessons from Iceland and Norway
title_fullStr Comparing Public Participation in Coastal and Marine Planning in the Arctic: Lessons from Iceland and Norway
title_full_unstemmed Comparing Public Participation in Coastal and Marine Planning in the Arctic: Lessons from Iceland and Norway
title_sort comparing public participation in coastal and marine planning in the arctic: lessons from iceland and norway
publisher MDPI AG
publishDate 2023
url https://doi.org/10.3390/coasts3040021
https://doaj.org/article/d441ab9fc21f4b8fb70c5462494c285f
geographic Arctic
Norway
Tromsø
geographic_facet Arctic
Norway
Tromsø
genre Arctic
Iceland
Tromsø
genre_facet Arctic
Iceland
Tromsø
op_source Coasts, Vol 3, Iss 4, Pp 345-369 (2023)
op_relation https://www.mdpi.com/2673-964X/3/4/21
https://doaj.org/toc/2673-964X
doi:10.3390/coasts3040021
2673-964X
https://doaj.org/article/d441ab9fc21f4b8fb70c5462494c285f
op_doi https://doi.org/10.3390/coasts3040021
container_title Coasts
container_volume 3
container_issue 4
container_start_page 345
op_container_end_page 369
_version_ 1788694672593387520