Multifunctionality is increasingly recognized as key to promoting biodiversity and delivering diverse benefits at the landscape level. However, varying interpretations in research and policy create challenges for practical implementation. This study examines how multifunctionality is understood and governed across five landscape types in Sweden: forest, agricultural, coastal and marine, urban, and mountain. By combining a review of scientific and policy literature with insights from policymakers and practitioners, we identify key challenges and opportunities for applying multifunctionality in landscape planning and management. While Swedish authorities support the concept, implementation remains limited due to weak political backing, unclear roles, and lack of coordination across sectors. Addressing conflicting interests and enhancing cross-sectoral governance are essential. The study highlights the need for clearer discourse, stronger tools, and greater attention to collaboration, values, and decision-making processes. The EU Nature Restoration Regulation presents an opportunity to integrate biodiversity and connectivity into spatial planning more effectively.

Economic growth strategies grounded in blue economy narratives are intensifying and proliferating marine conflicts. In light of this, the study explores how local actors employ bricolage—improvised, resourceful strategies—to challenge institutional norms and reconfigure power relations in the context of marine resource conflicts. We introduce a bricolage power framework to analyze marine conflict in Norway, Brazil, and South Africa. The study shows that fishers, working with NGOs and other partners, are actively engaged in amplifying their voices, promoting accountability, and seeking more just and sustainable ways to manage conflict. These insights emphasize the importance of collective action and collaborative partnerships to change conflict relations and outcomes by challenging various institutional practices and dominant power structures. In particular, the Brazilian and South African cases demonstrate how marginalized actors, through creative bricolage practices, can adapt and reinvent regulatory processes to challenge unjust practices and foster more inclusive and adaptive governance structures. While the grassroots initiatives examined show promise, they remain fragmented and have yet to catalyze systematic institutional transformation in the cases analyzed, so we are cautious against overestimating the transformative potential of these efforts.

This article contributes to the increasing traction of social justice in marine spatial planning (MSP) by exploring perceptions and experiences of social justice from the viewpoint of planners and different social groups who were included and (self)excluded in MSP processes. The study builds on empirical material from Poland, Latvia, and Germany consisting of interviews, MSP legislation, and documents that were analysed through the lens of a multidimensional social justice framework centring on recognition, representation, distribution, and capabilities. Results indicate that MSP institutional arrangements constrain possibilities for marginalised and less consolidated actor groups (residents, coastal tourism, and small-scale fisheries) to enjoy the same degree of recognition that is given to groups representing strategic national interests (renewable energy and shipping). We also highlight the role of planners’ self-reflectivity in enhancing/depriving capabilities of vulnerable social groups whose wellbeing and multidimensional relationships with the sea call for institutional responses adaptive to specific planning contexts. 

Against a backdrop of increasing pressures from biodiversity loss, climate change and competing stakeholder interests, this paper examines factors influencing the implementation of marine and coastal governance approaches and their implications for achieving multifunctional marine and coastal landscapes. Based on a comparative case study of the temporally and spatially overlapping implementation of a state-driven National Park (NP) and a community-led Biosphere Reserve (BR) in the Nämdö Archipelago, Sweden, we conducted semi-structured interviews with differently positioned stakeholders to explore the dynamics shaping these initiatives. Deploying the Institutional Analysis and Development framework as an analytical framework in conjunction with a complex systems approach, the study identifies the interplay of key institutional and socio-ecological factors driving implementation processes and influencing outcomes. Results concerning the NP implementation reveal persistent disagreements between local residents and authorities, due to rigid institutional structures, limited integration of local knowledge, poor communication and competing priorities. In contrast, the BR approach is generally viewed more positively, attributed to its flexible governance and proactive integration of local socioeconomic and cultural values. This study highlights the importance of adaptive, inclusive governance that can address the trade-offs and synergies inherent in multifunctional sustainability efforts in coastal regions. By combining the stability and enforcement capabilities of the NP model with the flexibility and inclusivity of the BR approach, the paper suggests that a hybrid governance model could better balance ecological, social and economic objectives. It advocates for marine governance structures that prioritise inclusive decision-making and the integration of diverse values to better align ecological and community goals.

International research programs have endorsed knowledge co-production to enhance the utility and impact of global environmental change research. However, knowledge co-production frequently overlooks the complex interrelations between knowledge and power that permeate transdisciplinary sustainability research (TDSR). We analyse how power relations in transdisciplinary ocean governance projects form research agendas and design of six projects within the Belmont Collaborative Research Action on Ocean Sustainability, representing a broad set of experiences of transdisciplinary marine sustainability research practice spanning a wide set of sustainability issues and geopolitical contexts. We examine how distinctive forms of power shape the ways in which researchers envision socio-environmental change and transdisciplinary work within a spectrum of knowledge-action practices ranging from 'linear' to 'relational'. Our findings highlight the need for a deeper engagement with theories of change throughout the lifespans of transdisciplinary projects. Furthermore, the results point at constraints imposed by existing funding structures and epistemic assumptions on the ability of the projects to adopt relational transdisciplinary co-production research strategies, tailored to specific ocean contexts. We recommend adaptive funding structures which would allow researchers to exercise co-production agility and overcome the tension between the needs for embeddedness and transferability of insights. Finally, we show how the three forms of power interact in the linear and relational models of linking knowledge and action and suggest areas where researchers need to direct their attention when designing and implementing transdisciplinary projects aiming to promote sustainability action in close collaboration with societal actors.

Transdisciplinary research has been put forward as a means to foster a radical shift in traditional scientific paradigms by promoting knowledge democracy while tackling wicked problems. This paper analyses how local social-ecological dynamics and institutional realities affect the way in which transdisciplinary research generates knowledge and develops sustainability pathways in diverse marine and coastal conflict contexts. Drawing on a cross-case analysis from a multicountry Belmont Forum project, namely OceansPact, this research analyzes key lessons on transdisciplinary practice. This analysis is informed by online surveys, semi-structured interviews with scholars and focus group discussions with non-academic stakeholders involved in the OceansPact. The paper demonstrates that transdisciplinary approaches can foster conflict transformation. Nonetheless, the results highlight that context-specific factors, including trust-building strategies and institutional cultures, significantly shape the processes of knowledge co-production and linking knowledge to transformative action. This study hence emphasize the need of flexible approaches, instead of standardized frameworks, that accommodate these diverse contexts and power dynamics, warning against reductionist approaches that oversimplify complexity. Emphasizing the political nature of transdisciplinarity, this paper calls for mechanisms that mitigate power asymmetries in transdisciplinary spaces. This paper moreover underscores the urgent need of systemic changes in academic institutions to support long-term, equitable collaboration between scholars and non-academic stakeholders, as well as of a shared understanding of transdisciplinary research so that this model can drive positive transformation.

While blue justice has gained traction, recognition and capability, which are necessary conditions for procedural and distributive justice, remain under-developed. We develop a four-dimensional blue justice framework that builds on recognition and capabilities to critically examine and advance justice in Poland’s marine spatial planning (MSP). We find that misrecognition of differential identities and capacities scripted powerless stakeholders out of participation and reduced possibilities for fair distribution. Conversely, MSP regulation augmented the rights of powerful actors through granting de jure “objecting” rights to some, inviting only strategic sectors to agenda-setting fora and, limiting MSP communication to meeting legal requirements. Several stakeholders also see defence and wind energy as key winners of MSP. While society will benefit from national security and energy sufficiency, especially given Russia’s increased weaponization of energy, many believe that financial profits from wind energy will accrue to developers. We offer governmental and planning measures to enhance capabilities. 

Att utveckla en förvaltning av Sveriges hav, med dess långsträckta kust och varierande ekosystem såväl i havet som på land, är en utmaning. Det ställer krav på samordning av beslut och genomförande på såväl lokal, nationell som internationell nivå. Förvaltningen måste också ta hänsyn till att både samhället och havsmiljön är under förändring, att ny kunskap utvecklas och att det finns en rad andra samhällsmål att ta hänsyn till.

Havsförvaltningsakademin bildades för att stärka kunskapsutbytet mellan i första hand samhällsvetenskapliga forskare och experter, och personer som arbetar med havsförvaltning i Sverige. Arbetet har resulterat i en gedigen antologi, där erfarna praktiker och akademiker inom olika samhälleliga discipliner ger sin bild av den svenska havsförvaltningen, hur den fungerar idag och vad som krävs för att kunna kalla den ekosystembaserad.

Community participation and influence are vitally important for meeting the multidimensional sustainability aims of marine spatial planning (MSP) and more specifically for procedural and distributive justice. While participation has received substantial research interest, we identify a need to: 1) develop equity-based principles for coastal community participation that can be used to assess and reform MSP practices; 2) generate rich empirical accounts of coastal community participation and representation linked to real-world MSP practices. Here we present the results of a study that synthesizes critical MSP and blue justice scholarship to develop principles and indicators of coastally equitable and just planning. Drawing on interviews with planners and stakeholders and analysis of planning and legal documents, these principles are used to assess participatory processes linked to Latvian MSP practices in the period 2015 to 2019. Our analysis shows that equitable and just MSP needs to be based on participation that is timely, inclusive, supportive & localized, collaborative, methodical and impactful. When applied to the Latvian case these six principles provide a comprehensive and versatile heuristic approach to assess participation in MSP. In the context of Latvian MSP practices, we revealed a fundamental challenge of maintaining inclusive and localized participation throughout the full planning cycle. To counteract the successive narrowing/hardening of participatory space our results indicate a need for continuously promoting diversity of voices and perspectives, opportunities for collaborative sense making, visioning and critique. This will help to bridge diverse MSP divides (e.g., between land and sea, between local, national, and global values and priorities, between science and local knowledge, and between blue growth, conservation, and justice goals). If applied more generally in research and as part of MSP evaluation an equity-based approach can promote the mainstreaming of coastally just and equitable MSP practices. Finally, considering contextual factors (e.g., history, culture, power, legislation) that shape participation and representation is crucial when applying the equity principles to a particular MSP setting to acknowledge and accommodate its particular characteristics and challenges.

This paper explores deep insights into sustainability transition tensions and pathways in terms of place-based conflict and potential for synergies between offshore wind energy (OWE) development and justice for humans and nonhuman nature. Specifically, we build a capability and recognition-based multispecies blue justice framework that at once centers ecological reflexivity (i.e., environmental awareness-raising, proxy representation of nature, and institutional recognition and protection of rights of nature and human-nature relationality), decenters anthropocentric frames of justice, and sheds light on injustices, human and nonhuman that climate and energy transitions may create or reinforce. This framework then informs analysis of a sustainability transition conflict, specifically a longstanding OWE conflict on Hiiumaa island, Estonia. This analysis unravels justice concerns, human and nonhuman, raised by proxy representatives of nature (i.e., grassroots actors and environmental stewards), the knowledge contestations involved, and the resolution measures undertaken thus far. Next, we discuss the possible transformative role of the OWE conflict, including how a Supreme Court ruling invalidating the OWE plan has fostered reflexive planning and may have set a legal precedent that may have human and nonhuman justice implications for the handling of future planning cases. We then highlight remaining challenges for socially and ecologically responsive OWE deployment. These include the judicial non-recognition of nature’s right as well as environmental values and sociocultural ties to nature as rights worth protecting, and the likely effects that formalization of European Union ambitions to speed-up and ramp-up renewable energy could have locally. These include prospects for environmental stewards and ocean defenders to steer nature-positive, people-centered energy transitions. Last, we propose conditions for enhanced multispecies justice, including how formal interventions (e.g., law) and informal practices (e.g., negotiation, awareness-raising) can be harnessed to unlock productive conflict and align energy transitions with the norms of justice, human and nonhuman.