Multi-use of the sea: from research to practice

Abstract

The increasing demand for ocean resources exerts an increasing pressure on the use of ocean space across all European Sea Basins. This underlines issues of compatibility (or conflicts) between different maritime uses as well as between economic activities and environmental protection. The idea of multi-use (MU), as a guiding concept for efficient allocation of compatible activities in the same marine space, can increase spatial efficiency and at the same time provide socio-economic and environmental benefits. However, its transition from a concept to real-world development is facing several barriers. Based on analysis of five European sea basins done under the Horizon 2020 MUSES project (Multi-Use in European Seas), this paper aims to clarify the concept of MU by discussing: 1) the definition in the literature and practice so far, and; 2) how existing regulatory and planning regimes are supporting and challenging the development of several MUs (considered as the most promising). The analytical methodology developed for the MUSES project relied on data collected via desk research and semi structured interviews with key stakeholders (e.g. industry, regulators), over the period of seven months. The semi-quantitative analysis of data conducted, identified the commonalities and differences among countries in respect to each of the analyzed MUs. The paper points out priorities for the MU development in different sea basins and recommends initial steps to overcome existing barriers, whilst maximizing local benefits. This paper is a starting point towards a broader scientific debate on: (i) what could be the role of management policies (like for instance maritime spatial planning - MSP) in supporting and fostering MU concept development, (ii) what are technical and technological challenges for technically advanced MUs, (iii) how added values of MUs concept (e.g. benefits for local economies, positive impacts on environment) could be enhanced.

Full text

Multi-use of the sea: from research to practice
Joanna Przedrzymirska1, Jacek Zaucha1, Daniel Depellgrin2, Rhona Fairgrieve3, Andronikos Kafas3, Helena Maria
Gregório Pina Calado4, Marta Horta de Sousa Vergílio5, Mario Cana Varona6, Marija Lazić1, Angela Schultz-
Zehden7, Ivana Lukic7, Eva Papaioannou8, Martina Bocci9, Rianne Läkamp10, Ioannis.Giannelos10, Aneta
Kovacheva10, and Bella Buck11
1The Maritime Institute in Gdansk, Długi Targ 41/42, 80-830 Gdańsk, Poland
2 CNR - National Research Council of Italy, ISMAR - Institute of Marine Sciences Arsenale - Tesa 104, Castello 2737/F, I-
30122 Venice, Italy
3Marine Scotland Science, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9DB, Scotland, UK
4MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre; FCT - University of the Azores, 9501-801 Ponta Delgada, Azores,
Portugal.
5CIBIO – Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources/InBIO – Associate Laboratory; University of the Azores,
9501-801 Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal.
6University of the Azores, 9501-801 Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal.
7SUBMARINER Network for Blue Growth EEIG, Kärntener Str. 20, DE–10827 Berlin, Germany
8University of Dundee, Nethergate, Dundee DD1 4HN, United Kingdom
9 Thetis SpA, Castello 2737/f, 30122 Venice, Italy
10Ecorys Nederland, Watermanweg 44, 3067 GG Rotterdam, The Netherlands
11Am Handelshafen 12, 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
Abstract.The increasing demand for ocean resources exerts an increasing pressure on the use of
ocean space across all European Sea Basins. This underlines issues of compatibility (or conflicts)
between different maritime uses as well as between economic activities and environmental
protection. The idea of multi-use (MU), as a guiding concept for efficient allocation
of compatible activities in the same marine space, can increase spatial efficiency and at the same
time provide socio-economic and environmental benefits. However, its transition from a concept to
real-world development is facing several barriers. Based on analysis of five European sea basins
done under the Horizon 2020 MUSES project (Multi-Use in European Seas), this paper aims to
clarify the concept of MU by discussing: 1) the definition in the literature and practice
so far, and; 2) how existing regulatory and planning regimes are supporting and challenging
the development of several MUs (considered as the most promising). The analytical methodology
developed for the MUSES project relied on data collected via desk research and semi structured
interviews with key stakeholders (e.g. industry, regulators), over the period of seven months.
The semi-quantitative analysis of data conducted, identified the commonalities and differences
among countries in respect to each of the analyzed MUs. The paper points out priorities for
the MU development in different sea basins and recommends initial steps to overcome existing
barriers, whilst maximizing local benefits. This paper is a starting point towards a broader scientific
debate on: (i) what could be the role of management policies (like for instance maritime spatial
planning - MSP) in supporting and fostering MU concept development, (ii) what are technical and
technological challenges for technically advanced MUs, (iii) how added values
of MUs concept (e.g. benefits for local economies, positive impacts on environment) could
be enhanced.
Acknowledgement
Analyses presented in this paper were financed by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under Grant Agreement no 727451. The authors would like to thank the MUSES project consortium
and all project partners for their valuable contributions to the project. The MUSES project is funded by the EU
Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020. Grant number: 727451. More information can
be found at https://muses-project.eu/.
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
SHS Web of Conferences 58, 01025 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185801025
GLOBMAR 2018

1. Introduction
Multi-use (MU) at the sea is a relatively new research topic that has emerged from three distinctive sources.
The first one is research and innovation, that prompts out development of new technologies offering novel ways
of exploitation of sea resources and improvement of its conservation measures. Several research projects [1] have
been conducted e.g. to investigate the possibility of establishing multi-purpose off-shore platforms, serving needs
of off-shore energy production, mariculture or sea tourism and even regular navigation.
Some combinations have been researched even more extensively such as off-shore wind energy
and aquaculture and substantial documentation exists in this field (e.g. [2], [3]). The second source is business
itself, e.g. tourism in the Mediterranean region considering new opportunities such as pescatourism [4]
or underwater culture heritage. This provides possibilities for combinations such as tourism and fishery
or tourism and protection of underwater artifacts. The third source is scarcity of space.
The emergence of maritime spatial planning [5-13] made it evident that marine space is not abundant
and it should be treated as a scarce resource [14]. Therefore, MSP urges for sparing use of the sea space [15]
and MU is among the considered solutions. Some scholars see MU as an analogue to the economies of scales that
drive terrestrial spatial development[16].
2. The essence of Multi-Use
The discussions and developments of MU of marine resources in the political and academic arena have generated
a variety of terms to describe the context. Each nomenclature is trying to capture and convey important information
about the particularities of their investigated scenario. As a result many differing terms have emerged during the
last 15 years for the same concept idea: co- and translocation, multi- and multi-functional use, co-use, secondary
and additional use and coexistence to name a few.
The information conveyed by these terms can cover every dimension from legal and business relationships
of users to even temporal and physical aspects of the multi-use relationship.
According to a definition elaborated within the MUSES project, ‘multi use’ (MU) is considered as a “joint use
of resources in close geographic proximity”. The term is an umbrella term covering a multitude of use
combinations in the marine realm and representing a radical change from the concept of exclusive resource rights
to the inclusive sharing of resources by one or more users. This can involve either a single user or multiple users.
The use means distinct and intentional activity through which a direct (e.g. profit) or indirect (e.g. nature
conservation) benefit is drawn by one or more users. The user means individual, entity or group that intentionally
benefits from a given resource, and the resource is understood as a good or service that represents a value to one
or more users (e.g. biotic, such as fish stocks; or abiotic, such as ocean space) and can be exploited through either
direct (e.g. fishing) or indirect (e.g. nature conservation) uses [1].
It is often difficult to differentiate between genuine MU and the mere coexistence of several uses. For example,
ships and fish use the same seawaters. However, this should not be considered as a MU, even though
the condition of lack of exclusivity is fulfilled. It’s doubtful whether this joint use of resources is intentional (rather
than coincidental) and is beneficial to both parties. Also diving in wreck sites should not be considered
as a MU. However, diving in the intentionally prepared and maintained under water sanctuaries is considered
as a MU, because it is based on conscious decisions and provides benefits to both users.
Recognizing the multitude of possible multi-use scenarios in European seas, two essential types of MUs
are defined:
a) Multi-use of geographical, human, biological resources
b) Multi-use of technical resources (marine infrastructure & platforms)
The first type means that multi-use of marine resources refers mainly to the geographical connection of resource
uses to create benefits for society and single actors. An example of such a multi-use is the combination
of offshore wind and tourism through boat tours viewing the offshore wind farm [17].
The second type means even closer (functionally and geographically) integration of uses to create even more added
value than a side-by-side scenario. This closer integration looks for synergies in integrating the operations and
implementation of offshore activities and can start by e.g. the simple sharing of the use of offshore supply vessels
to reduce individual operations costs. The synergistic integration of activities culminates in multi-use platforms.
MU offshore platforms are engineering solutions, designed to incorporate modules of other compatible activities
(e.g. TROPOS Project). A fully integrated multi-component and multi-purpose offshore platform serves as a main
infrastructure shared by two or more ocean uses (e.g. H2Ocean project designed
a platform coupling renewable energy harvesting + hydrogen generation + aquaculture + environmental
monitoring)[18].
In terms of sequence in which the development occurs, two scenarios of MU creation are considered as presented
in Figure 1.
Joint development of uses
MU where two (or more) combined uses
(from the blue growth sector
i.e. aquaculture or offshore wind)
are applying for licenses at the same time
VS
Staggered development of uses
One existing (traditional) use is already
in place and the new (emerging) one
is coming in MU where one sector is already
in place (e.g. underwater heritage protection)
and is being combined
with the new use (e.g. tourism)
Fig. 1. Two possible scenarios for the sequence of multi-use developments. Source: own elaboration
SUBMARINER and AWI
3. Multi Use as research subject
Several types of MU combinations have been researched in a wide variety of possible MU combinations,
all of them at different stages of their maturity and feasibility. The list of combinations (Tab.1) was compiled after
identifying combinations that have been analysed by past projects. A total of 26 case studies analysed
in past projects (e.g. MARIBE, MERMAID, H2Ocean and TROPOS) have resulted in 11 uses considered
as MU.
Table 1. MU combinations identified in the international projects
Project
Use
Co-Uses
EU funded projects
COEXIST
Project ID 245178
Fisheries and
aquaculture
Other coastal activities (stakeholder)
H2Ocean
Project ID 288145
Wind and Wave energy
Aquaculture,
Hydrogen (stored and shipped to shore as green energy
carrier)
MARIBE
(Marine Investment for the Blue Economy -
Baltic, North Sea, Atlantic, Caribbean,
Mediterranean)
Project ID 652629
(collected results from all other finished EU
multi-use projects)
Caribbean: Aquaculture
Tourism,
Wave energy,
Desalination
Mediterranean:
Aquaculture
Tourism
MERMAID
(Baltic, North Sea, Atlantic Mediterranean,
Lead: DTU)
Project ID 288710
Atlantic: Offshore wind
and wave energy
Maritime transport,
Mediterranean: Wave
energy
Leisure ,
Aquaculture ,
Maritime transportation
North Sea: Wind energy
Aquaculture (seaweed and shellfish),
Tourism
Baltic: Wind farm
Passive Fisheries,
Aquaculture (fish and seaweed)
ORECCA (Offshore Renewable Energy
Conversion platforms – Coordination Action)
Project ID 241421
Offshore Renewables
Aquaculture (biomass and fish),
Monitoring of the sea environment (marine mammals,
fish and bird life)
TROPOS (Mediterranean, Tropic, Sub-tropic,
Lead: PLOCAN)
Project ID 288192
Maritime transport
(offshore port and base
Fisheries (service station, storage),
Aquaculture (fish),
Energy (solar and ocean wave),
2
SHS Web of Conferences 58, 01025 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185801025
GLOBMAR 2018

1. Introduction
Multi-use (MU) at the sea is a relatively new research topic that has emerged from three distinctive sources.
The first one is research and innovation, that prompts out development of new technologies offering novel ways
of exploitation of sea resources and improvement of its conservation measures. Several research projects [1] have
been conducted e.g. to investigate the possibility of establishing multi-purpose off-shore platforms, serving needs
of off-shore energy production, mariculture or sea tourism and even regular navigation.
Some combinations have been researched even more extensively such as off-shore wind energy
and aquaculture and substantial documentation exists in this field (e.g. [2], [3]). The second source is business
itself, e.g. tourism in the Mediterranean region considering new opportunities such as pescatourism [4]
or underwater culture heritage. This provides possibilities for combinations such as tourism and fishery
or tourism and protection of underwater artifacts. The third source is scarcity of space.
The emergence of maritime spatial planning [5-13] made it evident that marine space is not abundant
and it should be treated as a scarce resource [14]. Therefore, MSP urges for sparing use of the sea space [15]
and MU is among the considered solutions. Some scholars see MU as an analogue to the economies of scales that
drive terrestrial spatial development[16].
2. The essence of Multi-Use
The discussions and developments of MU of marine resources in the political and academic arena have generated
a variety of terms to describe the context. Each nomenclature is trying to capture and convey important information
about the particularities of their investigated scenario. As a result many differing terms have emerged during the
last 15 years for the same concept idea: co- and translocation, multi- and multi-functional use, co-use, secondary
and additional use and coexistence to name a few.
The information conveyed by these terms can cover every dimension from legal and business relationships
of users to even temporal and physical aspects of the multi-use relationship.
According to a definition elaborated within the MUSES project, ‘multi use’ (MU) is considered as a “joint use
of resources in close geographic proximity”. The term is an umbrella term covering a multitude of use
combinations in the marine realm and representing a radical change from the concept of exclusive resource rights
to the inclusive sharing of resources by one or more users. This can involve either a single user or multiple users.
The use means distinct and intentional activity through which a direct (e.g. profit) or indirect (e.g. nature
conservation) benefit is drawn by one or more users. The user means individual, entity or group that intentionally
benefits from a given resource, and the resource is understood as a good or service that represents a value to one
or more users (e.g. biotic, such as fish stocks; or abiotic, such as ocean space) and can be exploited through either
direct (e.g. fishing) or indirect (e.g. nature conservation) uses [1].
It is often difficult to differentiate between genuine MU and the mere coexistence of several uses. For example,
ships and fish use the same seawaters. However, this should not be considered as a MU, even though
the condition of lack of exclusivity is fulfilled. It’s doubtful whether this joint use of resources is intentional (rather
than coincidental) and is beneficial to both parties. Also diving in wreck sites should not be considered
as a MU. However, diving in the intentionally prepared and maintained under water sanctuaries is considered
as a MU, because it is based on conscious decisions and provides benefits to both users.
Recognizing the multitude of possible multi-use scenarios in European seas, two essential types of MUs
are defined:
a) Multi-use of geographical, human, biological resources
b) Multi-use of technical resources (marine infrastructure & platforms)
The first type means that multi-use of marine resources refers mainly to the geographical connection of resource
uses to create benefits for society and single actors. An example of such a multi-use is the combination
of offshore wind and tourism through boat tours viewing the offshore wind farm [17].
The second type means even closer (functionally and geographically) integration of uses to create even more added
value than a side-by-side scenario. This closer integration looks for synergies in integrating the operations and
implementation of offshore activities and can start by e.g. the simple sharing of the use of offshore supply vessels
to reduce individual operations costs. The synergistic integration of activities culminates in multi-use platforms.
MU offshore platforms are engineering solutions, designed to incorporate modules of other compatible activities
(e.g. TROPOS Project). A fully integrated multi-component and multi-purpose offshore platform serves as a main
infrastructure shared by two or more ocean uses (e.g. H2Ocean project designed
a platform coupling renewable energy harvesting + hydrogen generation + aquaculture + environmental
monitoring)[18].
In terms of sequence in which the development occurs, two scenarios of MU creation are considered as presented
in Figure 1.
Joint development of uses
MU where two (or more) combined uses
(from the blue growth sector
i.e. aquaculture or offshore wind)
are applying for licenses at the same time
VS
Staggered development of uses
One existing (traditional) use is already
in place and the new (emerging) one
is coming in MU where one sector is already
in place (e.g. underwater heritage protection)
and is being combined
with the new use (e.g. tourism)
Fig. 1. Two possible scenarios for the sequence of multi-use developments. Source: own elaboration
SUBMARINER and AWI
3. Multi Use as research subject
Several types of MU combinations have been researched in a wide variety of possible MU combinations,
all of them at different stages of their maturity and feasibility. The list of combinations (Tab.1) was compiled after
identifying combinations that have been analysed by past projects. A total of 26 case studies analysed
in past projects (e.g. MARIBE, MERMAID, H2Ocean and TROPOS) have resulted in 11 uses considered
as MU.
Table 1. MU combinations identified in the international projects
Project
Use
Co-Uses
EU funded projects
COEXIST
Project ID 245178
Fisheries and
aquaculture
Other coastal activities (stakeholder)
H2Ocean
Project ID 288145
Wind and Wave energy
Aquaculture,
Hydrogen (stored and shipped to shore as green energy
carrier)
MARIBE
(Marine Investment for the Blue Economy -
Baltic, North Sea, Atlantic, Caribbean,
Mediterranean)
Project ID 652629
(collected results from all other finished EU
multi-use projects)
Caribbean: Aquaculture
Tourism,
Wave energy,
Desalination
Mediterranean:
Aquaculture
Tourism
MERMAID
(Baltic, North Sea, Atlantic Mediterranean,
Lead: DTU)
Project ID 288710
Atlantic: Offshore wind
and wave energy
Maritime transport,
Mediterranean: Wave
energy
Leisure ,
Aquaculture ,
Maritime transportation
North Sea: Wind energy
Aquaculture (seaweed and shellfish),
Tourism
Baltic: Wind farm
Passive Fisheries,
Aquaculture (fish and seaweed)
ORECCA (Offshore Renewable Energy
Conversion platforms – Coordination Action)
Project ID 241421
Offshore Renewables
Aquaculture (biomass and fish),
Monitoring of the sea environment (marine mammals,
fish and bird life)
TROPOS (Mediterranean, Tropic, Sub-tropic,
Lead: PLOCAN)
Project ID 288192
Maritime transport
(offshore port and base
Fisheries (service station, storage),
Aquaculture (fish),
Energy (solar and ocean wave),
3
SHS Web of Conferences 58, 01025 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185801025
GLOBMAR 2018

of logistic service for
energy sector)
Leisure activities (floating hotel, underwater observation
facility, scientific tourism, diving base, yachting services)
MARINA Platform
Project ID 241402
Wind Energy
Wave Energy
National funded projects
Project
Use
Co-Use
AquaLast
(Germany – Lead: AWI; University of Applied
Sciences Bremerhaven, Fraunhofer,
Weswerwind, TKB)
(AWI)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(loading on offshore support structures, such as wind
turbine foundations, caused by mussel longlines)
Biological and technical feasibility study of
marine aquaculture in the Thorthonbank
area, Belgium: Co-use of space with offshore
wind f arms
(Belgium - University of Ghent, SINTEF
Ocean)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(farming of blue mussel )
Coastal Futures
(Germany – Lead: University of Kiel; AWI,
GKSS)
(AWI)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(integrated coastal zone management for the integration
of aquaculture into wind farm areas)
Flandres Queen Mussel (FIOV)
(Belgium - Stichting voor Duurzame
Visserijontwikkeling -SDVO, ILVO)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(development of floating buoys with mussel ropes for spat
collection)
Gulf of Mexico OOA
(USA – University of Texas)
Offshore Oil Platforms
Aquaculture
(multi-use of offshore fish cultivation in combination with
offshore Oil & Gas)
Integrate the offshore wind technology with
aquaculture –development of fish farm
equipment for offshore conditions
(Norway - Statoil, SINTEF Ocean and Lerøy
Seafood Group)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(fish farming of salmon)
KOREA Co-Location
(South Korea – Lead: Korea Electric Power
Cooperation Research Institute (KEPCO);
Korean Institute of Ocean Science and
Technology - KIOST)
Offshore Wind Energy
Fisheries (passive fisheries),
Aquaculture
(seaweed production for biomethane and bioproducts in
wind farms)
Mosselkweek in Belgische windmolenparken
– Mussel production within Belgium Wind
Farms
(Belgium – Lead: University of Ghent; ILVO,
AWI, SINTEF, et al.)
Aquaculture
Wind energy,
Maritime energy
MytiFit
(Germany – Lead: AWI; Engel Netze, LAVES)
(AWI)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(mussel fitness, infestation of parasites, and selection of
hard substrates for multi-use)
NutriMat
(Germany – Lead: IMARE; Greim Fish
Consulting, AWI, University of Applied
Science Bremerhaven, WeserWind, Louis
Schoppenhauer GmbH & Co. KG)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(use of fouling organisms of offshore platforms for fish
feed in land-based aquaculture)
Nysted Sea Wind Farm Mussels
(Belgium – DTU)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(investigation on the possibility to multi-use for longline
mussel farming)
Ocean Forest
(Norway – Leroy Seafood Group, Bellona
Foundation)
Aquaculture (multi-
trophic)
Energy
Aquaculture (bio-mass production for energy generation)
Offshore-Aquaculture
(Germany – Lead: AWI; Terramare)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(investigations of the settlement and growth of bivalves
and macroalgae in the German Bight to test its feasibility
for offshore multi-use)
Offshore Site
Selection
(Germany – Lead: AWI; Thünen, University of
Rostock, Kutterfisch, WindMW, Deutscher
Fischereiverband, Skretting)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(offshore site selection for IMTA in co-use of offshore
wind farms)
Open Ocean Use (OOMU)
(Germany – Lead: IMARE; EWE, University of
Hannover, Thünen Institute, Bard Engineering,
Kutterfisch, Frosta, AWI)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(investigation on integrating an offshore fish cage into
tripile foundation)
Roter Sand Project
(Germany – Lead: AWI)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(development of system design for the use of offshore
environments for the cultivation of species for
aquaculture and bioextraction)
4
SHS Web of Conferences 58, 01025 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185801025
GLOBMAR 2018

of logistic service for
energy sector)
Leisure activities (floating hotel, underwater observation
facility, scientific tourism, diving base, yachting services)
MARINA Platform
Project ID 241402
Wind Energy
Wave Energy
National funded projects
Project
Use
Co-Use
AquaLast
(Germany – Lead: AWI; University of Applied
Sciences Bremerhaven, Fraunhofer,
Weswerwind, TKB)
(AWI)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(loading on offshore support structures, such as wind
turbine foundations, caused by mussel longlines)
Biological and technical feasibility study of
marine aquaculture in the Thorthonbank
area, Belgium: Co-use of space with offshore
wind f arms
(Belgium - University of Ghent, SINTEF
Ocean)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(farming of blue mussel )
Coastal Futures
(Germany – Lead: University of Kiel; AWI,
GKSS)
(AWI)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(integrated coastal zone management for the integration
of aquaculture into wind farm areas)
Flandres Queen Mussel (FIOV)
(Belgium - Stichting voor Duurzame
Visserijontwikkeling -SDVO, ILVO)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(development of floating buoys with mussel ropes for spat
collection)
Gulf of Mexico OOA
(USA – University of Texas)
Offshore Oil Platforms
Aquaculture
(multi-use of offshore fish cultivation in combination with
offshore Oil & Gas)
Integrate the offshore wind technology with
aquaculture –development of fish farm
equipment for offshore conditions
(Norway - Statoil, SINTEF Ocean and Lerøy
Seafood Group)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(fish farming of salmon)
KOREA Co-Location
(South Korea – Lead: Korea Electric Power
Cooperation Research Institute (KEPCO);
Korean Institute of Ocean Science and
Technology - KIOST)
Offshore Wind Energy
Fisheries (passive fisheries),
Aquaculture
(seaweed production for biomethane and bioproducts in
wind farms)
Mosselkweek in Belgische windmolenparken
– Mussel production within Belgium Wind
Farms
(Belgium – Lead: University of Ghent; ILVO,
AWI, SINTEF, et al.)
Aquaculture
Wind energy,
Maritime energy
MytiFit
(Germany – Lead: AWI; Engel Netze, LAVES)
(AWI)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(mussel fitness, infestation of parasites, and selection of
hard substrates for multi-use)
NutriMat
(Germany – Lead: IMARE; Greim Fish
Consulting, AWI, University of Applied
Science Bremerhaven, WeserWind, Louis
Schoppenhauer GmbH & Co. KG)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(use of fouling organisms of offshore platforms for fish
feed in land-based aquaculture)
Nysted Sea Wind Farm Mussels
(Belgium – DTU)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(investigation on the possibility to multi-use for longline
mussel farming)
Ocean Forest
(Norway – Leroy Seafood Group, Bellona
Foundation)
Aquaculture (multi-
trophic)
Energy
Aquaculture (bio-mass production for energy generation)
Offshore-Aquaculture
(Germany – Lead: AWI; Terramare)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(investigations of the settlement and growth of bivalves
and macroalgae in the German Bight to test its feasibility
for offshore multi-use)
Offshore Site
Selection
(Germany – Lead: AWI; Thünen, University of
Rostock, Kutterfisch, WindMW, Deutscher
Fischereiverband, Skretting)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(offshore site selection for IMTA in co-use of offshore
wind farms)
Open Ocean Use (OOMU)
(Germany – Lead: IMARE; EWE, University of
Hannover, Thünen Institute, Bard Engineering,
Kutterfisch, Frosta, AWI)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(investigation on integrating an offshore fish cage into
tripile foundation)
Roter Sand Project
(Germany – Lead: AWI)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(development of system design for the use of offshore
environments for the cultivation of species for
aquaculture and bioextraction)
SOMOS – Safe production Of Marine plants
and use of Ocean Space
(The Netherlands – Lead: Wageningen
University; TNO)
Offshore Renewable
Energy
Aquaculture
(Seaweed farming)
Stichting Noordzeeboerderij
(The Netherlands – Hortimare, Schuttelaar and
Partners)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(development of a seaweed technology and mass algal
production)
WINSEAFUEL
(France - French National Research Agency)
Offshore Wind Energy
Aquaculture
(seaweed mass production for biomethane and
bioproducts in wind farms)
Source: own elaboration by SUBMARINER and AWI
Figure 2. illustrates that combinations may differ in terms of their potential/feasibility and time of appearance.
Some of them are very probable in the near future, some may be possible in several years’ time, and others are not
likely to occur at all. However, this matrix is indicative of the complexity of the MU research.
Fig. 2. Feasibility of multi-uses combining two uses. Source: own elaboration by AWI and SUBMARINER
4. The researched sea basins
5
SHS Web of Conferences 58, 01025 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185801025
GLOBMAR 2018

It is evident that MUs might differ in the EU sea basins due to their specific features facilitating development
of some uses and hindering others. Five distinctive sea basins are defined in the EU sea waters if the outermost
regions are not included: the North-Eastern Atlantic (EA), the North Sea (NS), the Baltic Sea (BSR),
the Mediterranean Sea (Med) and the Black Sea (BS) (Fig 3). Each of these sea basins is characterized
by different physical conditions resulting in different uses of sea resources. However, despite obvious differences,
several common trends important for MU development are observed: 1) sectors dominating
in the given sea basin seem to strongly influence development of MU, 2) environmental assets tend to have
a more important role in allocation of the sea space to particular uses, 3) local and regional economic development
is a driving force for local MU initiatives.
Fig. 3. Sea basins analysed under MUSES project (drawing on [1])
A brief comparison between sea basins is provided in Table 2. Evidence is clear that some physical conditions
(wind potential) support multi-use based on wind farms in the North Sea and Eastern Atlantic, whereas high
temperature signifies an importance of tourism and possibility to combine tourism with other activities
in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea. Low salinity hinders mussels aquaculture in the Black Sea
and the Baltic.
Table 2. Overview of prevailing physical conditions in the analysed sea basins
Sea
Basi
n
EU Countries involved
Area
[km2]
Physical characteristics
Notes
Win
d
Waves
Tides
Temperature
[°C]
Salinit
y
[psu]
Dept
h
[m]
EA
Portugal (PT), Spain
(ES), France (FR),
Ireland (IR), United
Kingdom (UK)
?
Exce
llent
Powerful
Strong
Surface:
between 7 and
15
Deep waters:
between 5.5
and 7.5
35 or
higher
5000
(ocea
n)
Part of the world ocean. EU
countries have jurisdiction
over large maritime spaces.
NS
Denmark (DK),
Germany (DE)
Belgium (BE), France
(FR), United Kingdom
(UK), Netherlands
(NL),
570,00
0
Exce
llent
Strong (in
comparison
to the open
ocean
smaller
speed and
the larger
amplitude)
Strong
Average: 17
in the summer
and 6 in the
winter
25 -
34.5
avera
ge
90
Partially enclosed by land
but directly connected with
Atlantic Ocean, intensively
used for various economic
sectors.
BSR
Germany (DE),
Denmark (DK),
Sweden (SE), Finland
415,26
6
Goo
d
Moderate
Weak
Surface:
between -0.5
to +20
18
(west)
– 0
avera
ge 54
Completely enclosed by
land, connected with the
North Sea through Danish
(FI), Estonia (EE),
Lithuania (LT), Latvia
(LV), Poland (PL)
depending on
the season
(north-
eastern
)
straights, intensively used
for shipping and fishery.
ME
D
France (FR), Spain
(ES), Malta (MT),
Cyprus (CY), Croatia
(HR), Slovenia (SI),
Greece (GR), Italy
(IT),
2,505,
000
Mod
erate
and
good
Varies
Weak
Surface: 21-
28 in the
summer, 10-
17 in the
winter
36.5 -
39
?
Completely enclosed by
land, connected with the
Atlantic Ocean through the
Strait of Gibraltar,
intensively used for
shipping, tourism and
fishery with growing
importance of aquaculture.
BS
Romania (RO),
Bulgaria (BY)
436,00
0
Mod
erate
Moderate
Weak
Summer: up
to 30 (surface
) and 8.5
(deep waters)
17-18
Aver
age
1253
Completely enclosed by
land, connected with the
Mediterranean Sea through
the Dardanelles and the
Bosporus, intensively used
for shipping, tourism and
fishery.
Source: own elaboration by MIG
Availability of space is also a relevant factor influencing the development of MU. In small sea areas where space
is scarce, MU might be seen as an opportunity to use space in a more efficient way. In the oceans and other deep
sea areas, MU might be driven mainly by the economic benefits of such an approach (e.g. offshore MU platforms)
rather than spatial efficiency.
5. The most relevant multi-use combinations for each sea basin
Analyses were conducted at three geographical scales:
- Scale 1 – Intra-country scale: within single country;
- Scale 2 – Basin/sub-basin scale: sum of findings from all countries within a basin or sub-basin;
- Scale 3 – Trans-boundary scale: two or more countries.
The analyses were conducted with the use of various research methods including desk-based review of relevant
regulations (international to local levels), project reports and case studies, scientific reports, workshops
and interviews with stakeholders associated with marine planning in general and MU in particular. Relevant data
was collected at country-level and results aggregated and analysed at sea basin level.
The stakeholders’ preferences for individual MUs were revealed in the course of in depth interviews.
The stakeholders' opinions were confronted with the previous desk research findings and related to the sectoral
experience with MU development and to some extent also with the policy will in promotion of MU.
As the result, the combinations were prioritised taking into account that at least one sector has been already existent
(and preferably demonstrated some MU experience) and some policy will was in place (e.g. for tourism, fishery
and aquaculture in the Mediterranean sea basin). The top three combinations per sea basin are presented in Table
3.
Altogether, in all five sea basins, 14 MU combinations have been identified as existing or having potential.
Six of them have been selected as the most relevant in the sea basins at least in one of the sea basins (Table 3).
Table3. The most relevant MUs selected in the sea basins analysis
Note: blue number indicates the number of countries within the sea basin in which the given MU exists, orange
number indicates the number of countries in which the given MU has potential as one use is already in place.
MU name
EA
NS
BSR
MED
BS
MU1
Offshore Wind and Aquaculture
1/2
3/1
1/3
1/1
-
MU2
Offshore Wind and Tourism
1/1
1
3/2
-
-
MU3
Offshore Wind and Fisheries
1
4
1
-
-
MU4
Aquaculture and Tourism
3/1
-
1
3/3
2
MU5
Fisheries and Tourism and Environmental Protection
3
-
1
5/3
2
MU6
Underwater Cultural Heritage and Tourism and Environmental
Protection
3
-
4/2
1/4
2
Source: own elaboration by Maritime Institute in Gdańsk
6
SHS Web of Conferences 58, 01025 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185801025
GLOBMAR 2018

It is evident that MUs might differ in the EU sea basins due to their specific features facilitating development
of some uses and hindering others. Five distinctive sea basins are defined in the EU sea waters if the outermost
regions are not included: the North-Eastern Atlantic (EA), the North Sea (NS), the Baltic Sea (BSR),
the Mediterranean Sea (Med) and the Black Sea (BS) (Fig 3). Each of these sea basins is characterized
by different physical conditions resulting in different uses of sea resources. However, despite obvious differences,
several common trends important for MU development are observed: 1) sectors dominating
in the given sea basin seem to strongly influence development of MU, 2) environmental assets tend to have
a more important role in allocation of the sea space to particular uses, 3) local and regional economic development
is a driving force for local MU initiatives.
Fig. 3. Sea basins analysed under MUSES project (drawing on [1])
A brief comparison between sea basins is provided in Table 2. Evidence is clear that some physical conditions
(wind potential) support multi-use based on wind farms in the North Sea and Eastern Atlantic, whereas high
temperature signifies an importance of tourism and possibility to combine tourism with other activities
in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea. Low salinity hinders mussels aquaculture in the Black Sea
and the Baltic.
Table 2. Overview of prevailing physical conditions in the analysed sea basins
Sea
Basi
n
EU Countries involved
Area
[km2]
Physical characteristics
Notes
Win
d
Waves
Tides
Temperature
[°C]
Salinit
y
[psu]
Dept
h
[m]
EA
Portugal (PT), Spain
(ES), France (FR),
Ireland (IR), United
Kingdom (UK)
?
Exce
llent
Powerful
Strong
Surface:
between 7 and
15
Deep waters:
between 5.5
and 7.5
35 or
higher
5000
(ocea
n)
Part of the world ocean. EU
countries have jurisdiction
over large maritime spaces.
NS
Denmark (DK),
Germany (DE)
Belgium (BE), France
(FR), United Kingdom
(UK), Netherlands
(NL),
570,00
0
Exce
llent
Strong (in
comparison
to the open
ocean
smaller
speed and
the larger
amplitude)
Strong
Average: 17
in the summer
and 6 in the
winter
25 -
34.5
avera
ge
90
Partially enclosed by land
but directly connected with
Atlantic Ocean, intensively
used for various economic
sectors.
BSR
Germany (DE),
Denmark (DK),
Sweden (SE), Finland
415,26
6
Goo
d
Moderate
Weak
Surface:
between -0.5
to +20
18
(west)
– 0
avera
ge 54
Completely enclosed by
land, connected with the
North Sea through Danish
(FI), Estonia (EE),
Lithuania (LT), Latvia
(LV), Poland (PL)
depending on
the season
(north-
eastern
)
straights, intensively used
for shipping and fishery.
ME
D
France (FR), Spain
(ES), Mal
ta (MT),
Cyprus (CY), Croatia
(HR), Slovenia (SI),
Greece (GR), Italy
(IT),
2,505,
000
Mod
erate
and
good
Varies
Weak
Surface: 21-
28 in the
summer, 10-
17 in the
winter
36.5 -
39
?
Completely enclosed by
land, connected with the
Atlantic Ocean through the
Strait of Gibraltar,
intensively used for
shipping, tourism and
fishery with growing
importance of aquaculture.
BS
Romania (RO),
Bulgaria (BY)
436,00
0
Mod
erate
Moderate
Weak
Summer: up
to 30 (surface
) and 8.5
(deep waters)
17-18
Aver
age
1253
Completely enclosed by
land, connected with the
Mediterranean Sea through
the Dardanelles and the
Bosporus, intensively used
for shipping, tourism and
fishery.
Source: own elaboration by MIG
Availability of space is also a relevant factor influencing the development of MU. In small sea areas where space
is scarce, MU might be seen as an opportunity to use space in a more efficient way. In the oceans and other deep
sea areas, MU might be driven mainly by the economic benefits of such an approach (e.g. offshore MU platforms)
rather than spatial efficiency.
5. The most relevant multi-use combinations for each sea basin
Analyses were conducted at three geographical scales:
- Scale 1 – Intra-country scale: within single country;
- Scale 2 – Basin/sub-basin scale: sum of findings from all countries within a basin or sub-basin;
- Scale 3 – Trans-boundary scale: two or more countries.
The analyses were conducted with the use of various research methods including desk-based review of relevant
regulations (international to local levels), project reports and case studies, scientific reports, workshops
and interviews with stakeholders associated with marine planning in general and MU in particular. Relevant data
was collected at country-level and results aggregated and analysed at sea basin level.
The stakeholders’ preferences for individual MUs were revealed in the course of in depth interviews.
The stakeholders' opinions were confronted with the previous desk research findings and related to the sectoral
experience with MU development and to some extent also with the policy will in promotion of MU.
As the result, the combinations were prioritised taking into account that at least one sector has been already existent
(and preferably demonstrated some MU experience) and some policy will was in place (e.g. for tourism, fishery
and aquaculture in the Mediterranean sea basin). The top three combinations per sea basin are presented in Table
3.
Altogether, in all five sea basins, 14 MU combinations have been identified as existing or having potential.
Six of them have been selected as the most relevant in the sea basins at least in one of the sea basins (Table 3).
Table3. The most relevant MUs selected in the sea basins analysis
Note: blue number indicates the number of countries within the sea basin in which the given MU exists, orange
number indicates the number of countries in which the given MU has potential as one use is already in place.
MU name
EA
NS
BSR
MED
BS
MU1
Offshore Wind and Aquaculture
1/2
3/1
1/3
1/1
-
MU2
Offshore Wind and Tourism
1/1
1
3/2
-
-
MU3
Offshore Wind and Fisheries
1
4
1
-
-
MU4
Aquaculture and Tourism
3/1
-
1
3/3
2
MU5
Fisheries and Tourism and Environmental Protection
3
-
1
5/3
2
MU6
Underwater Cultural Heritage and Tourism and Environmental
Protection
3
-
4/2
1/4
2
Source: own elaboration by Maritime Institute in Gdańsk
7
SHS Web of Conferences 58, 01025 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185801025
GLOBMAR 2018

Out of eight in-depth analysed MUs, the most frequent (in terms of appearance as the existing in EU countries, see
table 3) have been the three related to tourism (MU2, MU4 & MU6). The combination of Fisheries
and Tourism and Environmental Protection has been tested or established in ten countries and within three sea
basins in which tourism is a driving force for blue growth. Also, the combination of Underwater Cultural Heritage
and Tourism and Environmental Protection has often occurred (ten countries) in four out of five sea basins. The
third most frequent MU is Aquaculture and Tourism – existing (according to the MUSES categorisation)| in six
member states of Southern Europe located in the Mediterranean and East Atlantic sea basins. Thus, in the policy
supporting MU, tourism as a MU driver should be properly considered.
The fourth MU in terms of practical deployment is Offshore Wind and Aquaculture, that has been tested or exists
in six countries (though in some cases energy is mainly a supplement to existing aquaculture with no ambition
to produce energy for sale).
However, in terms of future development, the picture looks quite different. The biggest expectations
are formulated by stakeholders towards Offshore Wind and Aquaculture as well as Underwater Cultural Heritage
and Tourism and Environmental Protection. Both MU combinations exist or have development potential
(with one use already in place) in 13 and 16 countries respectively. Both of these MU combinations have been
prioritised in four sea basins, however the first type of MU is not so prominent for the Black Sea and the second
one for the North Sea basin. This can be explained at least partially by physical characteristics of these sea basins
and their policy specificities in terms of blue growth. Wind energy is not a priority in the Black Sea whereas
in the North Sea underwater cultural heritage is not regarded as a development driver (i.e. the following sectors
take a lead in blue economy: commercial fisheries, oil and gas production, shipping and maritime transport, tourism
and offshore renewable energy development).
6. Conclusions for further research
Selection of the most important MUs for each sea basin seems only a top of an iceberg. There is a need for further
research in order to make the MU concept operational. To summarize the findings from this paper,
the following topics need further detailed research:
1. Researching MU in the context of resilience of marine ecosystems, since so far the economic and planning
perspective prevails in researching MU.
2. Establish the economic value of different combinations which might be challenging due to important
externalities related to them. Such research can change opinions of stakeholders and give space for new
priorities in relation to MU deployment.
3. Better understanding of stakeholders’ opinions with regard to MU. For instance in the Mediterranean sea basin,
combinations related to tourism were prioritised as the most relevant due to their prevalence
and importance for almost all countries in the given sea basin. Whereas combinations related to offshore wind
scored high due to high probability of France to increase investment in multitrophic aquaculture combined with
floating wind turbines that might offer EU breakthrough for this MU. Those peculiarities deserve more in depth
analysis.
4. Analysing possible deployment paths of the most promising MUs in the sea basins, in particular
the combinations related to offshore energy and tourism as driving sectors. The assistance should be tailored
to the maturity level of the supported combinations and the size of barriers hindering their development.
Also sea basin specificities must be taken into consideration. The support must be adjusted to the macro
regional needs. Casting support for MU development requires prior understanding of the reasons behind
prioritisation of some uses by macro regional experts.
All of the aspects mentioned above call for further research. In order to support the MU approach in a conscious
way - i.e. to move from research to practice – a different approach seems necessary. Previous research has been
focusing on the technical aspects of MU deployment. To complement this research, the social aspects need
to be further investigated, using behavioral economics, business anthropology and other fields of social science.
Applied research covering stakeholders’ motivations and attitudes, describing drivers and barriers
and identifying feasible policy solutions is essential for successful MU deployment in the future.
References
1. J. Zaucha, M. Bocci, D. Depellegrin, I. Lukic, B. Buck, M. Schupp, M. Caña Varona, B. Buchanan, A.
Kovacheva, P.K. Karachle, et al. (2017) Analytical Framework (AF) – Analysing Multi-Use (MU) in the
European Sea Basins. Edinburgh: MUSES project
2. T. Michler-Cieluch, G. Krause, B. H. Buck (2009) Reflections on integrating operation and maintenance
activities of offshore wind farms and mariculture.Ocean & Coastal Management 52(1): 57-68
3. B. H. Buck, R. Langan (eds.) (2017)Aquaculture Perspective of Multi-Use Sites in the Open Ocean. The
Untapped Potential for Marine Resources in the Anthropocene. Springer International Publishing, 404 p
4. W. Piasecki, Z. Głąbiński, P. Francour, P. Koper, G. Saba, A. Molina García, V. Únal, P.K. Karachle, A.
Lepetit, R. Tservenis, Z. Kızılkaya, K.I. Stergiou (2016). Pescatourism—A European review and
perspective. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 46 (4): 325–350.
5. A. Schultz-Zehden, K. Gee, K. Scibior (2008). Handbook on Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning.
Berlin: S.PRO, 98 p.
6. F. Douvere, C.N. Ehler (2009). New perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from European
experience with marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1): 77–88
7. H. Calado, K. Ng, D. Johnson, L. Sousa, M. Phillips, F. Alves (2010). Marine spatial planning: Lessons
learned from the Portuguese debate. Marine Policy, 34: 1341–49
8. Jay S., Flannery W., Vince J., Liu W.-H., Xue J.G., Matczak M., Zaucha J., Janssen H., van Tatenhove
J., Toonen H., Morf A., Olsen E., Suárez de Vivero J.L., Rodríguez Mateos J.C., Calado H., Duff J., Dean
H. (2013). Coastal and marine spatial planning. W: Chircop A., Coffen-Smout S., McConnell M. (red.).
Ocean Yearbook. Leiden: Brill (Ocean Yearbook; 27): 171–212
9. J. Zaucha (2014a). The Key to governing the fragile Baltic Sea. Maritime Spatial Planning in the Baltic
Sea Region and Way Forward. Riga: VASAB, 110 p.
10. J. Zaucha (2014b). Sea basin maritime spatial planning: A case study of the Baltic Sea region and Poland.
Marine Policy, 50: 34–45
11. A. Barbanti, P. Campostrini, F. Musco, A. Sarretta, E. Gissi (red.) (2015). Developing a Maritime Spatial
Plan for the Adriatic-Ionian Region. Venice: CNR-ISMAR, 255 p.
12. W. Flannery, G. Ellis, M. Nursey-Bray, J.P. van Tatenhove, C. Kelly, S. Coffen-Smout, R. Fairgrieve,
M. Knol, S. Jentoft, (2016). Exploring the winners and losers of marine environmental
governance/Marine spatial planning: Cui bono?/“More than fishy business”: epistemology, integration
and conflict in marine spatial planning/Marine spatial planning: power and scaping/Surely not all
planning is evil?/Marine spatial planning: a Canadian perspective/Maritime spatial planning – “ad
utilitatem omnium”/Marine spatial planning: “it is better to be on the train than being hit by it”/Reflections
from the perspective of recreational anglers... Planning Theory and Practice, 17: 121–151
13. A. Schultz-Zehden, K. Gee, (2016). Towards a multi-level governance framework for MSP in the Baltic.
Bulletin of the Maritime Institute in Gdańsk, 31(1): 34–44
14. J. Zaucha, (2009). Planowanie przestrzenne obszarów morskich. Polskie uwarunkowania i plan
pilotażowy. Gdańsk: Instytut Morski w Gdańsku, 149 p.
15. K. Gee, A. Kannen, B. Heinrichs (2011). BaltSeaPlan Vision 2030: Towards the sustainable planning of
Baltic sea space. Hamburg: BaltSeaPlan, 46 s.
16. J. Zaucha (2018) Gospodarowanie przestrzenią morską. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo naukowe Sedno
17. V. Westerberg, J. Bredahl Jacobsen, R. Lifran, 2013. The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs
and sustainable tourism in the French mediterranean. Tourism Management 34: 172-183.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.04.008.
18. M. Stuiver , K. Som, P. Koundouri , S. van den Burg, A. Gerritsen, T. Harkamp, N. Dalsgaard, F.
Zagonari, R. Guanche, J-J Schouten, S. Hommes, A. Giannouli, T. Söderqvist, L. Rosen, R. Garção, J.
Norrman, C. Röckmann, M. de Bel, B. Zanuttigh, O. Petersen, F. Møhlenberg (2016). The Governance
of multi-use platforms at sea for energy production and aquaculture: challenges for policy makers in
European seas. Sustainability 8(4):333. doi: 10.3390/su804033
19. S. Davoudi, J. Zaucha, Brooks E. (2016). Evolutionary resilience and complex lagoon systems Integrated
Environmental Assessment AND Management, 12(4): 711–8
8
SHS Web of Conferences 58, 01025 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185801025
GLOBMAR 2018

Out of eight in-depth analysed MUs, the most frequent (in terms of appearance as the existing in EU countries, see
table 3) have been the three related to tourism (MU2, MU4 & MU6). The combination of Fisheries
and Tourism and Environmental Protection has been tested or established in ten countries and within three sea
basins in which tourism is a driving force for blue growth. Also, the combination of Underwater Cultural Heritage
and Tourism and Environmental Protection has often occurred (ten countries) in four out of five sea basins. The
third most frequent MU is Aquaculture and Tourism – existing (according to the MUSES categorisation)| in six
member states of Southern Europe located in the Mediterranean and East Atlantic sea basins. Thus, in the policy
supporting MU, tourism as a MU driver should be properly considered.
The fourth MU in terms of practical deployment is Offshore Wind and Aquaculture, that has been tested or exists
in six countries (though in some cases energy is mainly a supplement to existing aquaculture with no ambition
to produce energy for sale).
However, in terms of future development, the picture looks quite different. The biggest expectations
are formulated by stakeholders towards Offshore Wind and Aquaculture as well as Underwater Cultural Heritage
and Tourism and Environmental Protection. Both MU combinations exist or have development potential
(with one use already in place) in 13 and 16 countries respectively. Both of these MU combinations have been
prioritised in four sea basins, however the first type of MU is not so prominent for the Black Sea and the second
one for the North Sea basin. This can be explained at least partially by physical characteristics of these sea basins
and their policy specificities in terms of blue growth. Wind energy is not a priority in the Black Sea whereas
in the North Sea underwater cultural heritage is not regarded as a development driver (i.e. the following sectors
take a lead in blue economy: commercial fisheries, oil and gas production, shipping and maritime transport, tourism
and offshore renewable energy development).
6. Conclusions for further research
Selection of the most important MUs for each sea basin seems only a top of an iceberg. There is a need for further
research in order to make the MU concept operational. To summarize the findings from this paper,
the following topics need further detailed research:
1. Researching MU in the context of resilience of marine ecosystems, since so far the economic and planning
perspective prevails in researching MU.
2. Establish the economic value of different combinations which might be challenging due to important
externalities related to them. Such research can change opinions of stakeholders and give space for new
priorities in relation to MU deployment.
3. Better understanding of stakeholders’ opinions with regard to MU. For instance in the Mediterranean sea basin,
combinations related to tourism were prioritised as the most relevant due to their prevalence
and importance for almost all countries in the given sea basin. Whereas combinations related to offshore wind
scored high due to high probability of France to increase investment in multitrophic aquaculture combined with
floating wind turbines that might offer EU breakthrough for this MU. Those peculiarities deserve more in depth
analysis.
4. Analysing possible deployment paths of the most promising MUs in the sea basins, in particular
the combinations related to offshore energy and tourism as driving sectors. The assistance should be tailored
to the maturity level of the supported combinations and the size of barriers hindering their development.
Also sea basin specificities must be taken into consideration. The support must be adjusted to the macro
regional needs. Casting support for MU development requires prior understanding of the reasons behind
prioritisation of some uses by macro regional experts.
All of the aspects mentioned above call for further research. In order to support the MU approach in a conscious
way - i.e. to move from research to practice – a different approach seems necessary. Previous research has been
focusing on the technical aspects of MU deployment. To complement this research, the social aspects need
to be further investigated, using behavioral economics, business anthropology and other fields of social science.
Applied research covering stakeholders’ motivations and attitudes, describing drivers and barriers
and identifying feasible policy solutions is essential for successful MU deployment in the future.
References
1. J. Zaucha, M. Bocci, D. Depellegrin, I. Lukic, B. Buck, M. Schupp, M. Caña Varona, B. Buchanan, A.
Kovacheva, P.K. Karachle, et al. (2017) Analytical Framework (AF) – Analysing Multi-Use (MU) in the
European Sea Basins. Edinburgh: MUSES project
2. T. Michler-Cieluch, G. Krause, B. H. Buck (2009) Reflections on integrating operation and maintenance
activities of offshore wind farms and mariculture.Ocean & Coastal Management 52(1): 57-68
3. B. H. Buck, R. Langan (eds.) (2017)Aquaculture Perspective of Multi-Use Sites in the Open Ocean. The
Untapped Potential for Marine Resources in the Anthropocene. Springer International Publishing, 404 p
4. W. Piasecki, Z. Głąbiński, P. Francour, P. Koper, G. Saba, A. Molina García, V. Únal, P.K. Karachle, A.
Lepetit, R. Tservenis, Z. Kızılkaya, K.I. Stergiou (2016). Pescatourism—A European review and
perspective. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 46 (4): 325–350.
5. A. Schultz-Zehden, K. Gee, K. Scibior (2008). Handbook on Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning.
Berlin: S.PRO, 98 p.
6. F. Douvere, C.N. Ehler (2009). New perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from European
experience with marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1): 77–88
7. H. Calado, K. Ng, D. Johnson, L. Sousa, M. Phillips, F. Alves (2010). Marine spatial planning: Lessons
learned from the Portuguese debate. Marine Policy, 34: 1341–49
8. Jay S., Flannery W., Vince J., Liu W.-H., Xue J.G., Matczak M., Zaucha J., Janssen H., van Tatenhove
J., Toonen H., Morf A., Olsen E., Suárez de Vivero J.L., Rodríguez Mateos J.C., Calado H., Duff J., Dean
H. (2013). Coastal and marine spatial planning. W: Chircop A., Coffen-Smout S., McConnell M. (red.).
Ocean Yearbook. Leiden: Brill (Ocean Yearbook; 27): 171–212
9. J. Zaucha (2014a). The Key to governing the fragile Baltic Sea. Maritime Spatial Planning in the Baltic
Sea Region and Way Forward. Riga: VASAB, 110 p.
10. J. Zaucha (2014b). Sea basin maritime spatial planning: A case study of the Baltic Sea region and Poland.
Marine Policy, 50: 34–45
11. A. Barbanti, P. Campostrini, F. Musco, A. Sarretta, E. Gissi (red.) (2015). Developing a Maritime Spatial
Plan for the Adriatic-Ionian Region. Venice: CNR-ISMAR, 255 p.
12. W. Flannery, G. Ellis, M. Nursey-Bray, J.P. van Tatenhove, C. Kelly, S. Coffen-Smout, R. Fairgrieve,
M. Knol, S. Jentoft, (2016). Exploring the winners and losers of marine environmental
governance/Marine spatial planning: Cui bono?/“More than fishy business”: epistemology, integration
and conflict in marine spatial planning/Marine spatial planning: power and scaping/Surely not all
planning is evil?/Marine spatial planning: a Canadian perspective/Maritime spatial planning – “ad
utilitatem omnium”/Marine spatial planning: “it is better to be on the train than being hit by it”/Reflections
from the perspective of recreational anglers... Planning Theory and Practice, 17: 121–151
13. A. Schultz-Zehden, K. Gee, (2016). Towards a multi-level governance framework for MSP in the Baltic.
Bulletin of the Maritime Institute in Gdańsk, 31(1): 34–44
14. J. Zaucha, (2009). Planowanie przestrzenne obszarów morskich. Polskie uwarunkowania i plan
pilotażowy. Gdańsk: Instytut Morski w Gdańsku, 149 p.
15. K. Gee, A. Kannen, B. Heinrichs (2011). BaltSeaPlan Vision 2030: Towards the sustainable planning of
Baltic sea space. Hamburg: BaltSeaPlan, 46 s.
16. J. Zaucha (2018) Gospodarowanie przestrzenią morską. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo naukowe Sedno
17. V. Westerberg, J. Bredahl Jacobsen, R. Lifran, 2013. The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs
and sustainable tourism in the French mediterranean. Tourism Management 34: 172-183.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.04.008.
18. M. Stuiver , K. Som, P. Koundouri , S. van den Burg, A. Gerritsen, T. Harkamp, N. Dalsgaard, F.
Zagonari, R. Guanche, J-J Schouten, S. Hommes, A. Giannouli, T. Söderqvist, L. Rosen, R. Garção, J.
Norrman, C. Röckmann, M. de Bel, B. Zanuttigh, O. Petersen, F. Møhlenberg (2016). The Governance
of multi-use platforms at sea for energy production and aquaculture: challenges for policy makers in
European seas. Sustainability 8(4):333. doi: 10.3390/su804033
19. S. Davoudi, J. Zaucha, Brooks E. (2016). Evolutionary resilience and complex lagoon systems Integrated
Environmental Assessment AND Management, 12(4): 711–8
9
SHS Web of Conferences 58, 01025 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185801025
GLOBMAR 2018