This section reflects on the key challenges identified through the project's earlier work, further developed through the case studies presented in this report. Drawing on participants' experiences and insights from across the region, it identifies three interrelated challenges at the intersection of digitalisation and ILK integration in MSP processes: (1) the way digital systems shape the design and structure of planning processes; (2) the unclear assignment of responsibility for collecting, validating and incorporating ILK within increasingly data-driven processes; and (3) the ways in which digital tools influence how knowledge is identified, interpreted and valued.
3.1 Planning purpose shapes the use of digital tools
MSP serves multiple purposes. Authorities may aim to allocate space efficiently, mediate conflicts, promote economic growth, protect ecosystems or foster social equity, often combining these aims in varying ways. In turn, how countries interpret and operationalise these purposes differs significantly, shaped by political traditions, legal frameworks, institutional legacies and prevailing discourses. The role of ILK is therefore framed differently in each context, with governments communicating its purpose and involvement to varying degrees. For instance, workshop examples from the North Atlantic region showed that, in some countries, governments have communicated the purpose of planning transparently and inclusively, while in others, planning goals have been presented less clearly or more strategically, influencing stakeholder trust, perceptions of legitimacy and the sense of fairness.
During the early stages of MSP, governments and designated authorities shape the overall direction of planning by setting principles and timelines, securing funding and allocating responsibilities across relevant institutions. These foundational decisions determine the extent of early stakeholder and community involvement, ranging from contexts where participatory processes are used to define planning principles and the purpose of MSP itself, to cases where planning is more centrally led and top-down, often constrained by limited budgets, time and institutional capacity.
These early design decisions also determine how digital tools are subsequently introduced and used throughout the process. MSP initiatives focused primarily on spatial allocation, such as Denmark's MSP, differ considerably in their approach to data collection from more locally oriented coastal zoning plans, such as Iceland's. Similarly, decisions to integrate ILK through participatory mapping, as in the Shetland Islands, or to use decision support systems, as in Sweden, illustrate how the framing of MSP at the outset directly shapes the role that ILK can play within it. Accordingly, confining Indigenous and local community input to stakeholder participation and consultation, which typically occur later in the MSP cycle, means that these groups rarely influence the foundational structure of the process itself. This limits their ability to shape planning objectives and priorities, as well as to contribute to decisions about how digital tools and methods are developed and applied in ways that are contextually appropriate for collecting and integrating ILK.
These limitations are further compounded once the direction and structure of MSP have been established and the process advances to data collection. At this point, the overarching objectives of the plan have already been determined and data gathering largely serves to support these predefined aims. As a result, this research finds that data collection often becomes an extractive process – a tendency that digital tools may reinforce. For instance, digital tools often require data to be formatted or structured according to predefined categories reflecting the values and assumptions of their developers, which may lead to distortion or exclusion of knowledge that does not conform to these formats. As digital tools are increasingly introduced into planning processes, decisions about which data are included, how they are weighted and how they are interpreted may become less transparent, reducing accountability and reinforcing existing biases. Efforts to integrate ILK into digital processes may also strip it of its relational and place-based dimensions, leading to generalisation or homogenisation of knowledge. These factors reflect the loss of control that Indigenous and local communities have over how their knowledge and input is used in digital processes, raising questions of ownership and autonomy in decision-making regarding local data. The extractive nature of this process may further lead communities to feel misrepresented or to opt out, as the exchange of knowledge is not mutually beneficial.
Indeed, disengagement and exclusion in MSP are often linked to its technocratic origins, in which MSP has historically been expert-driven and characterised by institutional authority, creating persistent power asymmetries, particularly reflected in stakeholder participation (Boucquey et al., 2016; Flannery et al., 2017). This reinforces a hierarchy of knowledge in which local and Indigenous perspectives are often seen as supplementary rather than foundational. As a result, more powerful actors tend to exert disproportionate influence over outcomes, while less vocal or organised groups are overlooked (Boucquey et al., 2016; Pennino et al., 2021). These patterns have led to tensions and a growing distrust in planning authorities, particularly when communication is limited and planning outputs fail to reflect the knowledge, values or priorities of affected communities. In contexts shaped by colonial pasts or historical marginalisation, such exclusion is felt even more acutely, further eroding trust and challenging the legitimacy of the process. Even when participation is formally offered, it may be perceived as symbolic, arriving too late to meaningfully influence decisions that have already been set in motion.
Recognising this, findings indicate that to move beyond tokenistic inclusion, local input should be integrated throughout the entire MSP cycle, from shaping its design and influencing the choice of methods and tools, to providing feedback on finalised plans that inform subsequent cycles. In this context, digital tools present important opportunities to enhance local engagement, particularly through participatory mapping and collaborative online platforms. These technologies can expand access, facilitate communication and improve the visibility of diverse perspectives. However, while digital tools could improve procedural transparency and responsiveness, they do not address the foundational power asymmetries that often lead to marginalisation. Achieving inclusive and context-sensitive MSP therefore requires not only the adoption of digital tools but also sustained, iterative engagement with communities throughout the entire planning process.
3.2 Responsibility for integrating the “local”
Findings suggest that while planning authorities recognise the value of integrating ILK into MSP, processes often unintentionally exclude communities or rely on non-inclusive methods due to time and budget constraints and limited capacity. Digital technologies, including mapping systems and participatory platforms, have expanded the capacity of planning authorities to collect, synthesise and analyse data more comprehensively and efficiently. In theory, these tools could address some capacity constraints and support more inclusive engagement. However, where tools have been introduced, implementation has not always led to more just and equitable outcomes.
This research suggests that this gap is attributed to both technological and capacity-related constraints but also reflects broader ambiguity around who is responsible for gathering local data and ensuring that tools are applied in ways that incorporate ILK. In contrast to single-sector management, where industries often have designated stakeholder coordinators or clear procedures for engagement, the responsibility for integrating ILK into MSP processes is more ambiguous. It frequently shifts between MSP planners, researchers and communities themselves and may vary depending on governance levels, approaches and methods. In turn, this ambiguity hampers efforts to distribute resources effectively – an issue that becomes more pressing as planning processes increasingly rely on digital technologies. Indeed, reliance on and frequent use of tools and data require strengthened specialised skills, technical competencies and an awareness of how decisions and biases affect outcomes. Accordingly, successfully adopting and deploying technologies in responsible ways demands stronger institutional support, whether by strengthening planners’ skills, bringing in external experts or strategically using digital tools to free up time and resources. In addition, given that data, maps and metrics are shaped by subjective choices, context and bias, the use of data-driven processes makes it even more important to clarify institutional roles and responsibilities in how such information is interpreted and applied.
Furthermore, operating new technologies necessitates an understanding of their impact on Indigenous and local communities, as well as the fostering of relationships that avoid “parachute research”, where information is extracted without engagement or benefit to those communities. This responsibility includes establishing trust, ensuring transparent communication about data use and developing sustainable methods to integrate ILK without diminishing its meaning or exposing communities to unjust planning procedures and outcomes.
3.3 Defining “local”
The ocean is a common-pool resource, holding diverse cultural, economic and ecological significance for coastal communities, Indigenous peoples, commercial sectors and ecosystems. At the same time, it is governed by overlapping and sometimes conflicting legal regimes and administrative jurisdictions, making it particularly challenging to define who should be involved in decision-making about ocean space (Rickels et al., 2016). According to Douvere and Ehler (2009), the integration of ILK is typically situated within public participation and stakeholder engagement procedures, where “all individuals, groups or organisations that are in one way or another affected, involved or interested in MSP can be considered stakeholders” (p. 43). However, defining who constitutes the “public” or has a legitimate “stake” in MSP is far from straightforward. The task of determining this often falls to planning authorities, placing additional responsibility on already resource-constrained institutions. As a result, planning authorities frequently struggle with inclusive engagement, due both to uncertainty about which actors to involve and a lack of clear institutional guidance or frameworks. This challenge is further compounded by shifting governance responsibilities and institutional ambiguity within the development of MSP itself.
Among those often regarded as the “public” or “locals” of the ocean, fisheries have historically maintained a strong presence at sea. Their longstanding relationship with marine space, combined with their economic and cultural importance in many coastal regions, often positions them as key stakeholders in MSP processes (Janßen et al., 2017; Lipsman, 2019). However, while historically the sector was among the first to occupy and utilise the oceans, it does not inherently grant it a greater or exclusive claim to marine space, especially as ocean use diversifies.
This research finds that determining where along the MSP development process “local knowledge holders” should be engaged, which sectors they represent and who qualifies as “local” quickly becomes a complex task. For instance, does “local” refer only to coastal residents or also to fishers, Indigenous communities, recreational users, local businesses or even future generations? Arguably, if marine environments are regarded as common-pool resources, it follows that all users and non-users (e.g. marine ecosystem services and future generations) hold some degree of stake in their management. However, this raises critical questions regarding the extent to which such stakeholders should automatically have a direct influence over decision-making processes and how this diffuse and often elusive constituency can be identified and engaged.
As one might expect, when the boundaries of inclusion are unclear, applying digital tools to support equitable and just knowledge integration becomes particularly difficult. Digital tools rely on clearly defined user groups and structured data inputs. A lack of clarity about whose knowledge needs to be represented makes it challenging to design tools and methods that are appropriate for the local environment. Digitalisation further complicates this by reinforcing assumptions about what counts as relevant knowledge. For instance, the need to convert ILK into digital formats that align with existing procedures often means that such knowledge should first be translated, codified and standardised to be considered in planning processes. This risks privileging knowledge systems that are more easily digitalised and relies on the assumption that ILK should conform to digital processes to be considered and accounted for, rather than the processes adapting to accommodate ILK. This, in turn, reflects broader power dynamics and the differences in legitimacy attributed to Western scientific knowledge versus ILK.
This dynamic is also reflected in the language used throughout MSP processes, where stakeholders are expected to adapt to MSP jargon, invest time in learning how to translate their knowledge into digital formats and simultaneously ensure that their knowledge is accurately represented in the process. At the same time, MSP processes risk losing important aspects of ILK, as some elements may not translate well into digital formats. A limited understanding of how knowledge is transformed at each stage of digitalisation (or with each augmentation) can therefore lead to further distortions or loss of meaning. To mitigate this risk, planning authorities need a clear understanding of whom they aim to include, whom they consider local, what knowledge these communities possess and how digitalisation may transform it.