1. Introduction
Marine areas around the world are increasingly being impacted by human activities
(Mayer 2013). Shifting political, economic and social climates are also effecting sea use patterns across the globe
(Kannen 2012). The multi-use and international nature of the sea complicates planning making it difficult for the integrated management of the seas (Gee et al. 2013) . Marine Spatial Planning is a complex socio-technical problem with a large number of actors and stakeholders associated
(Mayer 2013) requiring the different actors and stakeholders to work together closely if they desire to manage the seas in an integrated, sustainable manner.
The EU increasingly has cited the need for developing proper MSP specifically under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), however the same initiatives have yet to develop in a Canadian context. Although, initiatives exist in Canada leading towards sustainable maritime development, the term MSP cannot be found within the pages of Canada’s most recent Oceans Action Plan (Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FOC). Ocean Action Plan. Government of Canada, Ottawa, available from: /http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/oap-pao/page01-eng.aspS; 2005.)
MSP is likely more popular in the EU due to the amount of countries that share bodies of water, specifically in the North Sea becomes an area where the need for MSP is becoming increasingly more apparent. This case with Canada however will only get increasingly more complicated as arctic sea ice continues to melt and passages are opened within the arctic ocean. Canada may soon find itself having to share waters with the United States and Russia both who stake claim to parts of the Arctic Ocean. With the melting sea ice one will see the appearance of new shipping routes which will not only have an effect on local fauna but also on local human populations subsisting in the area (Meier et al. 2014).
OBJECTIVE: EXPLORE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SERIOUS GAME MSP CHALLENGE 2050 IN ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL, ECOLOGICAL, AND SOCIAL CHALLENGES LINKED TO MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING. AND WRITE UP RESEARCH QUESTIONS BRIEFLY.
say what's coming up
1 .1. The future of planning and dealing with boundaries
If Canada is to develop proper MSP strategies it is paramount that all actors and stakeholders involved learn to work properly with each other to maintain channels of communication throughout any project. The ocean is a multi-use resource consisting of many different strata that all must be considered and managed together (Mayer et al. 2013). From the deep sea to the surface, all parts of the ocean can have various cascading effects on the other (Mayer et al. 2013). Given the many different users and strata of ocean management, boundaries will undoubtedly arise. Even in terms of those working to promote MSP, information and experience from a variety of different disciplines will be required (Edelenbos et al. 2011, Cox et al. 2016, Schlütler et al. 2017) leading to further boundary spaces that must be managed.
The concept of boundaries carries negative connotations of separation and discontinuity although boundaries can also be seen as connecting rather than divisive as they are a part of all worlds and domains that they separate. The idea of boundaries must be re-framed in order to reap all of the learning benefits that can occur in these boundary spaces (Akkerman and Bruining 2016). This is in fact corroborated in certain learning theories (see Wenger, 1998 and his situated learning theory). This leads to the concept of boundary crossing which refers to the ability to operate across different practices, perspectives and domains (Oonk et al., 2017; Akkerman and Bruining, 2016; Akkerman and Bakker, 2011). The act of boundary crossing falls on the shoulders of planners in order to bring together the different actors and stakeholders operating within these boundary spaces (Oonk et al., 2017). As the world continues to globalize and as professions become increasingly specialized the way in which planners operate has begun to shift in order to address the “wicked” problems that can occur. (Oonk et al., 2017, Albrechts, 2015).
In order to improve MSP it is paramount that all actors and stakeholders involved learn to properly work with each other and to maintain channels of communication throughout any project. Many activities occur in the seas these include but are not limited to: fishing, shipping, tourism, wind farms, petroleum development etc.
(Mayer 2013). As such, many different actors with many different vocabularies, backgrounds and perspectives must work together. The interdisciplinary nature of MSP can lead to jurisdictional, and physical boundaries separating stakeholders (ADD CITATION). These jurisdictional and physical boundaries are also accompanied by socio-cultural boundaries marked by a differences leading to discontinuity or inaction
(Akkerman 2011).
Planners must then create spaces and learning environments that embrace boundaries and allow for techniques to allow for boundary crossing (Oonk et al., 2017).
By creating these boundary learning spaces planners can lead stakeholders towards the goal of knowledge co-creation
1.2. Dynamic Knowledge co-creation
Knowledge and value co-creation has been increasingly used in different domains, specifically in businesses, to gain a competitive advantage over other companies in terms of research and development (Kazadi et al. 2015). The collaborative opportunities allow for a unique method of knowledge (co-)creation by harnessing the diverse knowledge and resources that different types of stakeholders can offer (Kazadi et al. 2015). This diverse knowledge brought forward by the stakeholders is a resource that is not readily available through market transactions (Kazadi et al. 2015).
1.3. Serious Games (Laura)
has
Serious games have long been used for planning in the healthcare, defense and education sectors (Chew, Lloyd, and Knudsen 2015). More recently, hardware and software advances has enabled them to be developed for the natural resource management sector to help players understand complex adaptive systems (CAS), promote knowledge co-creation and help participants develop a common vision for management of the resources at play. Teaching about CAS can be difficult but by using serious games, players can understand theories and concepts by experiencing them through the game (van Bilsen, Bekebrede, and Mayer 2010). Ecosystems can be described as complex adaptive systems, meaning that the parts of the system interact non-linearly, usually through balancing or reinforcing loop relationships, and emergent properties resulting from the interactions of different parts of the system (van Bilsen, Bekebrede, and Mayer 2010). When making decisions that affect a CAS, it is difficult to understand the impacts because of these loops and emergent properties, the effects or existence of which are often unknown. Therefore, decision-makers are faced with an added layer of complexity. Serious games can help understand how these CAS function in two different ways. The physical-technical interface of the game is made of a physical model with a game layer on top (Mayer 2009). This model must be realistic enough so that obvious inconsistencies don’t make the players doubt the validity of learning outcomes (van Bilsen, Bekebrede, and Mayer 2010). This allows the players to understand the concepts of balancing and reinforcing loops as well as emergent properties. Furthermore, the participants themselves become part of the CAS and model the social-political complexity of the system (Mayer 2009). Serious games provide a safe environment for participants to make decisions and learn about CAS. This characteristic lowers pressure associated with decision-making and allows the participants to discuss different management strategies, which promotes knowledge transfer. One of the premises of serious games is that the learning that happens when playing can be used outside of the game (Mayer 2009). Since the game abstracts the participants’ formal roles and places them on the same playing field, it helps equalize power, which promotes transparent discussions (Mayer et al. 2013, Levesque et al. 2017). Additionally, as the game progresses, trust builds between the participants. This trust helps information sharing during the game and can lead to lasting trust outside of the game setting (Levesque et al. 2017). With equalized power and trust between the players comes the building of a common understanding of issues. Since serious games allow participants to test out management strategies over long periods of time, it doesn’t allow for negotiated nonsense. In a real-life setting, actors can sometimes make decisions collectively which please most actors, but that lead to disaster or simply bad management practices when applied. The game will also expose any tyranny of small decisions since it shows the cumulative impacts of decisions over time. These features of the game promote communication and planning between participants. However, this communication isn’t necessarily smooth. In fact, players of MSP Challenge 2011 reported that contentious discourse during the game led to better planning outcomes (Mayer et al. 2013). Although the use of serious games in natural resource management is novel, it can help participants learn about CAS, promote knowledge transfer, and help build a common vision for a management strategy.
1.4. MSP - What is it and Challenges (Muhammad)
MSP challenge 2050 is a serious game simulation that provides a virtual environment for strategic planning of marine resources. MSP challenge 2050 as the name indicates portray a challenge situation for sustainable management of complex maritime and ecological systems. It provides a platform for vision 2050 planning to achieve ‘Good Environmental Status’ for an imaginary sea shared with six countries that may have different interests, administrative and legal systems, and planning cultures (Mayer et al. 2013). Common challenges include but not limited to transboundary planning, ecological and environmental sustainability, and stakeholder engagement.
In addition to these challenges, MSP considered spatial variability for considering social and ecological interactions. MSP consider planning in five dimensions e.g. deep below sea floor for oil and gas exploration, slightly below sea floor for cable, below sea level fish and aquacultural, sea level for shipping and above sea level for migration of birds. Ocean planning without considering the interaction between system ecology, habitat structures, and site tourism may adversely affect the sustainability of the system. MSP is an innovate tool that provides help in achieving amicable solutions together with policy-oriented learning of conceptual principles for analyzing MSP as a complex, multi-actor and sociotechnical system.