In the face of accelerating climate change and mounting pressures on marine ecosystems, the pursuit of sustainable ocean management has never been more urgent. Researchers are increasingly focused on refining the tools and strategies used to safeguard the marine environment while balancing human use. A recent publication in npj Ocean Sustainability, part of the esteemed Nature series, brings critical attention to the nuanced distinctions between Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and Marine Protected Area (MPA) planning. Although often conflated in discourse and policy, these two approaches embody fundamentally different objectives and operational frameworks. This clarification is essential for charting a path toward effective ocean stewardship amid an era of rapid environmental change.
Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Protected Area planning have traditionally occupied overlapping conceptual spaces in marine management dialogues. Both processes use spatially defined areas to regulate activities, with the ultimate goal of fostering ecological resilience and sustainable resource use. However, MSP is a more integrative framework designed to orchestrate multiple ocean uses across sectors and scales, whereas MPA planning takes a more targeted conservation-oriented approach. The conflation of these distinct methodologies risks muddling governance efforts and diminishing their respective contributions to biodiversity protection and sustainable economic development.
The team behind this clarifying study, led by Dr. Catarina Frazão Santos of the University of Lisbon and collaborating with international experts from the United States, Italy, Canada, and the United Kingdom, underscores the urgent need to disentangle these concepts. Recognizing their differences is a foundational step toward deploying them synergistically to address the intertwined crises of climate change and biodiversity loss in marine environments. The research indicates that MSP and MPA planning, when effectively integrated yet respected for their distinct goals, can form complementary pillars of holistic ocean management.
Central to the discussion is the role of MSP as a high-level, dynamic decision-making process. MSP seeks to spatially organize ocean uses such as fishing, shipping, renewable energy development, and recreation, aiming to reduce conflicts, enhance efficiency, and protect critical habitats at broader ecosystem and social scales. It leverages multi-stakeholder engagement and systems thinking, incorporating spatial and temporal dimensions that address present conditions and anticipated future shifts driven by climate change. MSP’s ability to adapt and respond to changing oceanic conditions makes it a vital tool for climate-smart governance.
Conversely, MPA planning is inherently conservation-centric, designed primarily to preserve or restore biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience within strictly regulated zones. MPAs often employ zonation strategies that limit or prohibit extractive and disruptive activities to safeguard sensitive marine life and habitats. Their spatial and temporal scales may be more fixed, focusing on particular ecological features or species. They also tend to involve regulatory frameworks emphasizing protection and monitoring over broader sectoral coordination.
One of the manuscript’s pivotal contributions is the detailed articulation of five fundamental dimensions that distinguish MSP from MPA planning: the use of zonation, scalar considerations in space and time, stakeholder involvement modalities, system-level perspectives, and the incorporation of climate change projections. This multidimensional differentiation fosters conceptual clarity, helping policy-makers, planners, and practitioners avoid the pitfalls of terminological ambiguity that can stall progress and generate resource inefficiencies.
Importantly, the study moves beyond distinction, elaborating on how MSP can actively bolster and enhance MPA effectiveness in a warming, acidifying ocean. Climate-smart MSP fosters a suite of pathways to support MPA planning: from identifying potential new MPA sites responsive to shifting species distributions, through enabling dynamic and flexible MPA designs that evolve with environmental change, to informing adaptive management and restoration strategies. These mechanisms allow for anticipatory and responsive ocean use allocation that align with conservation priorities while embracing socio-economic realities.
Crucially, the authors emphasize that MSP is not a substitute for medium- and long-term biodiversity conservation goals underpinning MPA frameworks, nor should it be viewed as a tool solely for promoting economic development at the expense of ecosystem integrity. Instead, MSP and MPA processes are mutually reinforcing when their complementarity is acknowledged and operationalized. This integration creates a more resilient governance architecture capable of leveraging spatial planning at multiple scales to achieve both sustainable use and biodiversity protection objectives.
The discourse advocates shifting the dominant paradigm from conflation and competition between MSP and MPA planning to one of strategic synergy. Realizing this vision demands common definitions, harmonized methodologies, and a systemic view that transcends traditional sectoral silos. Additionally, integrating climate change considerations into both planning processes ensures they remain relevant and adaptive in the face of uncertain and rapidly evolving ocean conditions.
Stakeholder engagement emerges as another critical axis differentiating these approaches. MSP typically involves a broader array of users, including industrial, recreational, indigenous, and community interests, providing a platform to negotiate trade-offs and align goals. MPA planning governance, while also participatory, tends to focus more narrowly on environmental stakeholders and regulatory authorities charged with implementing protection measures. Recognizing these distinctions informs more effective communication strategies and governance frameworks tailored to each process.
Beyond the theoretical, the study bridges to practical applications in national and regional contexts, stressing that clarity in terminology and governance will streamline implementation. Misunderstandings about MSP and MPA roles have previously led to legislative conflicts, suboptimal planning outcomes, and missed opportunities to address climate resilience proactively. By establishing a shared vocabulary and understanding, ocean management can harness the complementary strengths of both approaches to foster more adaptive, inclusive, and effective responses to ocean challenges.
The scientific community’s call resonates strongly with global policy agendas such as the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development and ongoing commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Aligning MSP and MPA planning contributes directly toward achieving multiple ocean-related Sustainable Development Goals by enhancing marine ecosystem health, securing livelihoods, and mitigating climate impacts.
As marine ecosystems grapple with threats from acidification, warming temperatures, overfishing, and pollution, the study provides a roadmap not only for addressing existing challenges but also for anticipating future scenarios. It highlights the urgency of embedding climate change considerations holistically within spatial planning efforts to preserve fish stocks, coral reefs, and other critical habitats.
In conclusion, this insightful research underscores the imperative to move beyond oversimplifications and conceptual entanglement surrounding marine spatial management approaches. By clarifying the distinct yet complementary roles of MSP and MPA planning, and identifying actionable pathways for their integration, the authors illuminate a promising avenue toward climate-smart, biodiversity-conscious ocean stewardship. This advancement is indispensable to sustaining ocean health and human well-being in an era of unprecedented change.
Subject of Research: Marine spatial planning and marine protected area planning under climate change
Article Title: Marine spatial planning and marine protected area planning are not the same and both are key for sustainability in a changing ocean
News Publication Date: 15-May-2025
Web References:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44183-025-00119-4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s44183-025-00119-4
Image Credits: Toby Matthews via Ocean Image Bank
Keywords: Marine Spatial Planning, Marine Protected Areas, Climate Change, Ocean Sustainability, Biodiversity Conservation, Ocean Governance, Climate-smart Planning, Ecosystem Resilience, Spatial Management, Ocean Policy
