The scientific literature presents various interpretations and definitions of coexistence, along with related concepts such as “co-use”, “co-location”, “multi-functional”, “multi-purpose” and “multi-use”. These terms are often used interchangeably, which can lead to confusion. Much of the literature on coexistence in the context of MSP focuses on spatial co-location and multi-use of activities. This approach seeks to move beyond traditional MSP practices, typically characterised by dividing space for single uses – known as “zoning” – and instead promotes co-location and multi-use to address spatial conflicts. However, these concepts lack a universally accepted definition and their practical applications remain limited.
For example, Schupp et al. (2019), frequently cited in the literature, define coexistence as a form of multi-use, similar to co-location, in which different activities share the same space and time without interacting or sharing services (such as commercial fisheries within offshore wind farm areas). Co-location refers to placing activities together to improve efficiency, while multi-use involves multiple stakeholders sharing space, resources or functions to enhance synergies. According to European Parliament research, coexistence refers to activities existing simultaneously in the same place and/or at the same time, whereas co-location involves actively managing at least two activities sharing marine space. More importantly, “cooperation reflects an interaction between two or more activities, each benefitting from that relationship, and leading to a growth for both”.
A substantial body of literature highlights conflicts among stakeholders within MSP, primarily over space. These spatial conflicts are expected to increase as coastal and offshore areas are used more intensively. However, conflicts are not inherently negative, as they can also drive transformative change. The literature emphasises the importance of stakeholder collaboration in resolving such conflicts. As noted by authors including Kirkfeldt & Andersen (2021), coexistence within MSP requires proactive planning and coordinated management to balance competing interests and conflicts, as well as to identify opportunities.
In the “Green Meets Blue” project, we found that, for the Nordic countries, coexistence is not necessarily about locating activities within the same marine space. Insights from Nordic countries’ MSP documents and interviews with stakeholders reveal that sustainable coexistence is more about effective collaboration and inclusive stakeholder engagement in MSP and related governance processes, such as the permitting of offshore wind developments. In other words, it is less about shared marine space and more about coordinated governance.
In the context of offshore wind energy and fisheries, sustainable coexistence requires balancing the interests of diverse stakeholders, including wind developers, fishers, environmental protection actors (for example, authorities and NGOs) and other relevant parties, such as local communities. The goal should be to ensure the sustainable use of marine resources while minimising negative impacts on marine ecosystems and the services they provide.