Images: Rebecca Eriksson, Nordregio

2. The digital challenge

Although the use of digital tools in MSP provides new opportunities for streamlining processes and improving efficiency, this research finds that the shift towards more digital processes simultaneously introduces challenges for integrating the knowledge of Indigenous and local communities.

Our research highlights three of these interrelated challenges, which are presented in the following section as:

1. The influence of digital tools on the design and structure of MSP processes.

2. The lack of clearly assigned responsibilities for collecting and integrating ILK within increasingly digital MSP processes.

3. The ways in which digital tools influence how diverse ILK is identified, interpreted and valued.

2.1 What is the purpose of planning?

MSP serves multiple purposes, from spatial allocation and conflict mediation to fostering environmental protection, social equity and economic growth. These objectives are often combined, interpreted and operationalised in different ways depending on political priorities, legal frameworks and prevailing discourses. They are typically defined at the national level in response to international commitments, such as net-zero climate targets or marine conservation provisions. This makes MSP fundamentally a political process rather than a neutral one (Flannery et al., 2018; Flannery et al., 2019), in which national agendas sometimes conflict with local needs and perspectives.

While some processes allow for the tailoring of national and international objectives to local conditions, other rely on more standardised, “one-size-fits-all” approaches, which have historically produced rigid, pre-defined and exclusive processes that fail to fully reflect local contexts, creating tensions between governance levels and actors (Jones et al., 2016). Indeed, the consequences of this top-down approach are well-documented, ranging from implementation failures and stakeholder exclusion to eroded trust in governance institutions (Domínguez‑Tejo et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2016; Pennino et al., 2021).

In turn, these tensions play out differently depending on the scale of planning, which varies across countries. For example, Denmark’s nationwide, legally binding MSP contrasts with regional planning in the Shetland Islands, shaping both the role and influence Indigenous and local communities have in decision-making and how MSP processes are designed. Decisions about principles, timelines, responsibilities, methods of data collection and communication strategies determine whether and how local involvement occurs, and ultimately whose knowledge is incorporated.

The “digital turn” of MSP does not resolve these structural challenges – it digitalises them. Because MSP is purpose-driven, the objectives set at the outset directly shape what information and data are collected and communicated, as well as which tools are selected and applied. This also suggests that digital tools are only as effective as the intentions and decisions guiding their use. Depending on how inputs and data are selected and processed and whose knowledge is included in the datasets, these tools can support more balanced planning or reinforce existing inequities, either narrowing or widening the gaps between different governance levels, actors and knowledge systems.

Cases from the region: Marine spatial planning in Iceland

The first MSP processes in Iceland illustrate how national–local tensions arise when there is limited local influence over process design. MSP in Iceland was formally introduced through the adoption of Law 88/2018 (Coastal and Marine Planning Act, 2018), marking a shift towards more integrated governance of coastal and marine areas. The first regional plans were developed for the Westfjords and Eastfjords, regions characterised by ecologically sensitive fjord systems and rapid growth in aquaculture and tourism.

Despite recognising the value of local knowledge, the MSP process reflected a national-level mandate with limited scope for local influence. While scientists contributed data that informed the plans, stakeholder engagement was largely confined to single sector-specific meetings. Following the plan proposals, three public meetings were held per region at different locations and at very short notice, effectively amounting to only one opportunity per area. Rather than contributing to visioning, objective setting, conflict resolution or co-production, participation was oriented towards commenting on already drafted plans. As participation activities were fragmented and primarily focused on data extraction rather than dialogue or iterative participation, many residents were unaware that MSP was underway, felt excluded or perceived that their concerns, particularly regarding aquaculture expansion, were ignored or dismissed.

This prioritisation of plan production over process design, combined with predetermined procedural structures, meant that participation felt tokenistic or exclusive by many stakeholders. This dynamic was exacerbated by the distance between where planning decisions originated and where the impacts of outcomes were felt.

More detailed descriptions of this case study are available in the forthcoming workshop report, to be published spring 2026.

2.2 Who is responsible for integrating the “local”?

Planners and researchers engaged in this project across the North Atlantic region agree on the importance of integrating ILK into MSP processes. However, a gap exists between this aspiration and the actual capacity to achieve it. On the one hand, there is ambiguity regarding who is responsible for collecting and integrating this knowledge, at what stage of the planning process and to what extent. On the other hand, even when processes aspire to be locally grounded, efforts to integrate ILK are constrained, particularly by technical limitations, capacity gaps and unclear institutional mandates.

As MSP has been implemented across the region, planners, researchers and practitioners have frequently expressed frustration over limited funding, time and other resources to actively engage and build relationships with Indigenous and local communities, particularly when political support is lacking. This makes it difficult for planning authorities to meet existing demands on MSP processes, let alone the additional demands that come with the increasing use of digital tools and data. Thus, without clearly defining who should integrate ILK and distributing adequate resources for this work, ILK risks continuing to fall through institutional gaps.

Today´s MSP processes commonly utilise digital tools to collect, synthesise, analyse and visualise data. As these tools, including newer AI-powered applications, become more embedded in planning, their dependence on structured and standardised datasets can risk marginalising knowledge that does not easily fit these formats. At the same time, digitalisation is not always appropriate or desirable, as certain forms of ILK are sensitive or fundamentally embedded in place-based traditions and may lose their meaning and integrity in the process. These challenges become more pressing as planning processes increasingly rely on technologies that are designed for Western scientific knowledge and may not align with how ILK is generated, maintained, shared and understood.

Working responsibly with digital tools and data requires specialised skills, technical expertise and awareness of how choices and biases embedded in tools and data affect outcomes. It also requires building transparent, participatory processes in which communities have ownership and agency over how their knowledge is shared and applied. This is particularly important when including Indigenous and local communities, whose knowledge may become decontextualised or misrepresented when translated into digital formats, or excluded entirely if it does not fit these systems. Addressing these challenges requires institutions to build new capacities, often in areas where they lack experience. This means developing not only technical skills, but also critically reflecting on how knowledge is valued, how power dynamics shape processes and what assumptions underlie decisions in MSP.

Moreover, these capacity constraints also shape how institutions engage with communities. When resources and time are limited, digital tools are sometimes used as substitutes for direct interaction rather than as supportive instruments. While these tools are often used to improve communication, this research shows that data, maps and metrics cannot replace the trust and relationship-building needed for meaningful participation.

Cases from the region: Blue justice or just blue? A case study on Greenlandic small-scale fisheries

While Greenland does not currently have MSP in place, recent developments in fisheries management illustrate the challenges that arise when responsible authorities lack the trust, understanding or capacity to work with Indigenous and local communities. The recent expansion of the Individual Transferable Quota system (ITQ), implemented through national policy processes, exemplifies this tension. With the decision to limit inshore catch, many small-scale fishers in remote communities, such as Narsaq in South Greenland, report feeling disconnected from decisions that directly affect their livelihoods, access to fishing grounds and cultural practices.

Despite detailed, place-based knowledge of marine species and seasonal dynamics, local fishers were rarely engaged in decision-making leading up to the expansion of the ITQ system. Instead, their contributions were reduced to logbook data submitted to authorities, with little transparency regarding how this information was used, interpreted or potentially shared back with communities. This one-directional flow of information reinforced perceptions that ILK was collected without clear responsibility for its integration. While concerns have been raised about misinterpretation and the loss of ILK when translated into standardised digital formats, communities also emphasise the potential of digital tools to enhance knowledge inclusion, accessibility and transparency. Fishers in Narsaq emphasise their willingness to share knowledge and collaborate with authorities, provided that their knowledge is respected and integrated.

However, years of extractive data collection, limited communication and top-down decision-making have created mutual mistrust between government institutions and Indigenous and local communities. While government institutions lack trust in Indigenous and local communities and debate the legitimacy of their knowledge, the communities perceive this distrust as a lack of respect and unwillingness to include them in political decisions, widening the gap between the two sides. This suggests that before digital tools or formal MSP processes can effectively integrate ILK, a first step should be to rebuild relationships and resolve underlying tensions between government institutions and Indigenous and local communities.

More detailed descriptions of this case study are available in the forthcoming workshop report, to be published spring 2026.

2.3 Who is “local”?

The ocean is a common-pool resource, holding diverse cultural, economic and ecological significance for multiple communities, ecosystems and sectors. At the same time, it is governed by overlapping and often misaligned legal regimes and administrative jurisdictions, making it challenging to define who should be involved in decision-making on the use of ocean space. The integration of ILK is typically situated within public participation and stakeholder engagement procedures (Douvere and Ehler, 2009); however, defining who constitutes the "public" or has a legitimate "stake" in MSP is far from straightforward.

The responsibility for determining this often falls on planning authorities, placing additional tasks on already resource-constrained institutions. Consequently, planning authorities often struggle with inclusive engagement due to uncertainty about which actors to involve and at which stages, as well as a lack of clear institutional guidance or frameworks. This challenge is further compounded by shifting governance responsibilities, changing political priorities and institutional ambiguities within MSP development itself.

Indeed, determining where along the MSP development process Indigenous and local communities should be engaged, which sectors they represent and who qualifies as “local” quickly becomes a complex task. If marine environments are regarded as common-pool resources, arguably all users and non-users hold some degree of stake in their management. However, this raises questions about the extent to which such stakeholders should have direct influence over decision-making and how this diffuse constituency can be identified and engaged. Moreover, framing ILK integration primarily as a matter of mapping uses for authorities to weigh against other factors overlooks the potential for communities to actively shape implementation, process design and outcomes.

When the question of “who to involve” remains unclear, applying digital tools to support ILK integration becomes difficult. Digital tools rely on clearly defined user groups and structured data inputs, making it challenging to design appropriate tools and methods without knowing whose knowledge needs to be represented.

Digitalisation further reinforces assumptions about which types of knowledge are prioritised in planning processes. Rarely asked is whether ILK should be digitalised at all, not just whether it can be. Converting ILK into digital formats implies that such knowledge should first be translated, coded and standardised to fit existing systems, rather than designing systems that are compatible with the ways ILK is held and transmitted. This risks privileging knowledge systems that are more easily digitalised, which can reinforce broader power dynamics in how legitimacy is attributed to Western scientific knowledge versus ILK.

Cases from the region: Towards stricter marine protection in Raet marine national park, Norway

Norwegian marine national parks (MNPs) have struggled to implement conservation measures to protect the marine ecosystem due to incoherent governance frameworks and local resistance to top-down management. However, after years of local concern over diminishing coastal cod, local municipalities on the southern Norwegian coastline initiated the “Protect Raet” project to increase marine protection in Raet Marine National Park (est. 2016). A key stakeholder working group was established, involving the Institute of Marine Research (IMR), local public sector bodies, an environmental NGO and the local fishing and trawling fleet, to enable co-definition of no-take zones in Raet. With their livelihoods intimately connected to fishing over generations, the fishers resisted.

In 2024, IMR also implemented an online Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS) mapping exercise, in which locals could draw “zones of value” and tag activities associated with them. While the effort to engage stakeholders is promising, it has so far failed to gain the support of the fishers or enable engagement beyond the project group. Key challenges include weak planning, limited attention to power dynamics and poor integration of ILK. Fishers appeared to be framed as “culprits” responsible for declining marine resources rather than as resourceful experts. Other key stakeholders such as tourism operators, recreational users and port authorities were lacking, and no structure for participation in decision-making currently exists. Predefining categories through PPGIS further risks excluding groups, such as elderly residents, and overlooking strong cultural and relational values. More broadly, this case reveals how stakeholder identification and the use of digital tools can limit who is considered “local” and reinforce narrow definitions when participation is structured around pre-determined categories.

More detailed descriptions of this case study are available in the forthcoming workshop report, to be published spring 2026.

Cases from the region: Marine decision-making in Portsmouth, England

While lying outside the primary project region, Portsmouth’s Southsea Coastal Management Scheme shows how the temporal dimension of planning adds another layer of complexity to defining who is “local”. The scheme was developed following a regional Shoreline Management Plan published in 2010, which determined that coastal defences should "hold the line" against sea-level rise and storm surges in Southsea, a suburb of Portsmouth with a long maritime history and active natural harbours. The project involved constructing a new sea wall to protect the area, with local residents and business owners as the primary stakeholders.

The decision to build a new sea wall had already been made through the regional Shoreline Management Plan, which did not include public consultation. Local engagement was therefore limited to the design stages through multiple non-statutory consultations, providing opportunities for the public to view design options, provide input and give feedback on details rather than on whether the defence was needed or desired. This consultation process took over ten years, during which the local population of Southsea changed. Some early participants who had shaped the initial design options were no longer present for the final decisions, while new residents arrived with no prior involvement. A public-facing website provided access to all previous consultation materials and the development timeline, allowing both longstanding and new residents to review past input. However, this could only partially address deeper questions of legitimacy. As the initial decision had been predetermined, only details remained negotiable and the local constituency itself had shifted over time.

The Southsea case study demonstrates that “local” is defined not only spatially but also temporally. In long-term planning processes, communities are dynamic rather than static, creating participation challenges and raising questions about whose input should carry weight when the people affected by decisions are not necessarily the same as those who shaped them.

More detailed descriptions of this case study are available in the forthcoming workshop report, to be published spring 2026.