Marine protected areas and maritime spatial planning integration dynamics across Europe

Abstract

Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) has emerged as a central governance tool to balance ecological, social, and economic uses of marine space, while Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) remain essential for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem resilience. Effective integration of MPAs into MSP can enhance conservation outcomes and reduce conflicts with human activities, yet the degree of integration across the European Union (EU) remains highly uneven. This study examines how MPAs are embedded within national MSP frameworks in 20 EU Member States, aiming to classify, compare, and explain differences in integration levels. A typology of four integration levels is introduced, ranging from MPAs as primary drivers of MSP to their treatment as passive spatial layers. The methodology combines the development and application of a set of questions directed at MSP experts with the use of a decision tree and allocation criteria designed to assess responses and classify countries according to their level of MPA–MSP integration. Results reveal substantial disparities across EU Member States. Belgium, Germany, Latvia, Slovenia, Sweden and the Netherlands showed the strongest degree of integration, with conservation objectives embedded in MSP provisions and influencing cross-sectoral planning decisions. In contrast, most countries incorporated MPAs mainly through environmental assessment instruments or treated them as existing spatial layers, environmental constraints, or separate legal instruments. Key barriers include fragmented governance structures, limited translation of environmental assessments into binding spatial decisions, weak links between MSP and MPAs management, uneven monitoring and enforcement capacity, and limited mechanisms for stakeholder coordination. Advancing MPA–MSP integration requires stronger legal frameworks, adaptive management strategies, ecological connectivity, and inclusive governance processes. By providing a systematic comparison and highlighting best practices, this study provides recommendations to foster more cohesive, resilient, and biodiversity-informed marine governance.