Multi-Use of the Sea as a Sustainable Development Instrument in Five EU Sea Basins
2. Sustainable Development and Multi-Use
2.1. Key Pillars of Maritime Sustainable Development
2.2. Multi–Use as at Sea
3. Materials and Methods
4.1. The Existence of MUs
4.2. MUs in the EU Sea Basins from the Perspective of Stakeholders
5.1. Stakeholders Perception of MU Potential in Five EU Sea Basins
5.2. Supporting MU
- In the “Sustainable Blue Growth Agenda for the Baltic Sea Region” of 2014 there is a suggestion of supporting flagship projects related to exploiting the potential for co-existence of maritime uses .
- The Black Sea a New Regional Cooperation Initiative named Synergy  contains no single reference to MU, collocation, co-existence nor co-use. However, this initiative is not limited to blue growth but encompasses broader array of co-operation topics. Also, Common Maritime Agenda (Ministerial Declaration since 2019) and SRIA (Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda) for the Black Sea Basin (which replace the Synergy from 2007) do not include any reference to Maritime Spatial Planning and MU (although the MSP process for the Black Sea Basin (Bulgaria and Romania) was started in 2014 under the two pilot projects MSRSPLAN-BS I and II, supporting the ongoing process of MSP in both EU Member States).
- The Ministerial Declarations of the Union for the Mediterranean on the blue economy  also contains no links to the MU concept. However, in the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region [51,52] some specific claims towards the development of the MU approach can be found. Coordination of aquaculture and fisheries with other activities (tourism, environmental protection) is suggested although it is not clear whether the final outcome should be in MU form or co-existence. Also, the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of the Blue Med Initiative  explicitly address MU (multi-use platforms in support of environmental monitoring, safety and security, and renewable energy development). In the Declaration of the Meeting of the Ministers of the Countries participating in the Initiative for the Sustainable Development of the Blue Economy in the Western Mediterranean the ministers support multi-use offshore platforms and ask MSP for synergic uses of sea space and resources .
- In the Atlantic, the Atlantic Strategy was considered as a key blue growth document. The Action Plan for the Atlantic Strategy contains suggestions on integration of renewable energy installations for offshore wind, wave, tidal, and biomass energies with desalination plants and multipurpose offshore platforms .
- In the North Sea the blue growth strategy is under elaboration within preparatory action’ for a regional strategy in the North Sea region supporting regional cross-sectoral maritime cooperation. At the workshop on Strategic Cooperation on Blue Growth in the North Sea the MU have been discussed in depth, in particular in relation to technologies that ensure the multi-use of maritime space .
- The strongest policy support is provided by the U.K. and by some Mediterranean countries. The latter enhance sea uses combination in various types of policy documents, support schemes and national legislation  but only in a few sectors (pescatourism as a leader). In the U.K. support is mainly provided by MSP. It is expressed in the legal/policy MSP documents (e.g., in the Marine Policy Statement  that explicitly states that Marine Plans could ‘encourage co-existence of multiple uses’). This co-existence focus is generally observed in the Marine Plans for England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
- MU has been supported at national level in the Black Sea region. However, this concept is absent in the strategic documents at the regional level (sea-basin level) with exception of EU funded projects (MU concept and its support with MSP has been elaborated in the MARSPLAN-BS II project).
- In the North Sea support exists at various forms (legislation, economic incentives, administrative routines, MSP, sectoral strategies) in almost all countries, with the exception of Denmark in which economic incentives and MSP enhancing MU are missing. In the North Sea the various terms supporting co-combination of uses are used in the national legislation of the majority of sea basin countries, but their practical usage is limited to the UK and Belgium. However, in contrast to the Mediterranean case, maritime spatial planning in the North Sea countries is much more open to MU in the planning stage. However, the support is also very general.
- In the Baltic Sea Region MU support is limited to the western countries including Poland. However, this support is hardly systematic. For instance, in Poland MU is supported mainly by MSP. Economic incentives for MU are missing despite verbal support to this concept in regional strategies. MU is also missing in the national legislation of majority of countries in the Baltic Sea Region. MU is not excluded there but is not directly supported.
5.3. Contribution of MU to Sustainable Development
5.3.1. Need for the Territorialisation of MUs
5.3.2. Global Recognition and Agency-Driven, Content-Oriented Coordination
5.3.3. More Holistic MU Support
- Recognition of specifies of different EU sea basin in terms of impact of MU on various aspects of sustainable development
- Recognition of MU not only in MSP documents but also in other key strategies such as SDGs goals or Macroregional strategies and action plans
- Employment of more coherent and concise spectrum of MU support efforts covering not only MSP but also sectoral incentives and educational efforts.
- Evaluation of policy performance with regard to supporting MUs. In particular, more research is necessary on how to integrate an MU concept within the blue growth or environment policy and social sustainability idea. While the initial analysis indicated that the MU concept is well aligned with sustainable development ambitions, reality does not support this finding. Although MU fits into the sustainable development in real applications in maritime governance it is decidedly absent.
- More profound research on MUs, and the impact MU has on societal goals. Typically, such goals include enhancing societal innovations, securing places for less influential but socially significant sectors, leaving more space for the decisions of future generations, mitigating climate change, contributing to the well-being of the environment, etc. However, the focus should remain on recognition and distribution. MUs might create several risks in this regard that require further investigations.
- Evaluation and assessment of various types of costs and benefits, including external ones related to MUs and their incorporation into the price. The outcomes of such research can guide both the private sector’s decisions and the decision-makers’ allocation of sea space for various uses.
- Compiling spatio-socio-economic multipliers of MUs (e.g., impact of MUs on spatial patterns, local cultures and economic growth on land).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg14 (accessed on 29 April 2021).
- Ke, L.; Yin, S.; Wang, S.; Wang, Q. Spatiotemporal changes caused by the intensive use of sea areas in the liaoning coastal economic zone of China. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0242977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaucha, J. The Key to Governing the Fragile Baltic Sea. Maritime Spatial Planning in the Baltic Sea Region and Way Forward; VASAB: Riga, Latvia, 2014; p. 110. [Google Scholar]
- Medeiros, E. The Global Development Formula. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyvelou, S.S.; Ierapetritis, D. Discussing and Analyzing “Maritime Cohesion” in MSP, to Achieve Sustainability in the Marine Realm. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 Establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. Off. J. Eur. Union 2014, 135–145. [Google Scholar]
- Christie, N.; Smyth, K.; Barnes, R.; Elliott, M. Co-location of activities and designations: A means of solving or creating problems in marine spatial planning? Mar. Policy 2014, 43, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Depellegrin, D.; Venier, C.; Kyriazi, Z.; Vassilopoulou, V.; Castellani, C.; Ramieri, E.; Bocci, M.; Fernandez, J.; Barbanti, A. Exploring Multi-Use potentials in the Euro-Mediterranean sea space. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 653, 612–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanuttigh, B.; Angelelli, E.; Bellotti, G.; Romano, A.; Krontira, Y.; Troianos, D.; Suffredini, R.; Franceschi, G.; Cantù, M.; Airoldi, L.; et al. Boosting The blue growth in a Mild Sea: Analysis of the Synergies Produced by a Multi-Purpose Offshore Installation in the Northern Adriatic, Italy. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6804–6853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Yates, K.L.; Schoeman, D.S.; Klein, C.J. Ocean zoning for conservation, fisheries and Marine renewable energy: Assessing trade-offs and co-location opportunities. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 152, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Stelzenmüller, V.; Diekmann, R.; Bastardie, F.; Schulze, T.; Berkenhagen, J.; Kloppmann, M.; Krause, G.; Pogoda, B.; Buck, B.H.; Kraus, G. Co-location of passive gear fisheries in offshore wind farms in the German EEZ of the North Sea: A first socio-economic scoping. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 183, 794–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stuiver, M.; Soma, K.; Koundouri, P.; van den Burg, S.; Gerritsen, A.; Harkamp, T.; Dalsgaard, N.; Zagonari, F.; Guanche, R.; Schouten, J.-J.; et al. The Governance of multi-use platforms at sea for energy production and aquaculture: Challenges for policy makers in European seas. Sustainability 2016, 8, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sangiuliano, S.J. Analysing the potentials and effects of multi-use between tidal energy development and environmental protection and monitoring: A case study of the inner sound of the Pentland Firth. Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 120–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonnevie, I.M.; Henning, S.H.; Schrøder, L. Assessing use-use interactions at sea: A theoretical framework for spatial decision support tools facilitating co-location in maritime spatial planning. Mar. Policy 2019, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hooper, T.; Austen, M. The co-location of offshore windfarms and decapod fisheries in the UK: Constraints and opportunities. Mar. Policy 2014, 43, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyriazi, Z.; Maes, F.; Degraer, S. Coexistence dilemmas in European marine spatial planning practices. The case of marine renewables and marine protected areas. Energy Policy 2016, 97, 391–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buck, B.H.; Langan, R. Aquaculture Perspective of Multi-Use Sites in the Open Ocean: The Untapped Potential for Marine Resources in the Anthropocene; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Klinger, D.H.; Eikeset, A.M.; Davíðsdóttir, B.; Winter, A.; Watson, J.R. The mechanics of the blue growth: Management of oceanic natural resource use with multiple, interacting sectors. Mar. Policy 2018, 87, 356–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsilimigkas, G.; Rempis, N. Maritime spatial planning and spatial planning: Synergy issues and incompatibilities. Evidence from Crete island, Greece. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2017, 139, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ICES. Report of the Workshop on Conflicts and Coexistence in Marine Spatial Planning (WKCCMSP) 8–12 February 2016; CM 2015/SSGEPI:22; ICES: Geesthacht, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Saunders, F.; Gilek, M.; Ikauniece, A.; Tafon, R.V.; Gee, K.; Zaucha, J. Theorizing Social Sustainability and Justice in Marine Spatial Planning: Democracy, Diversity, and Equity. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Dühr, S. Territorial cohesion and its impact on sustainable development. EcoRegion Perspect. 2021, 2, 14–15. [Google Scholar]
- Eikeset, A.M.; Mazzarella, A.B.; Davíðsdóttir, B.; Klinger, D.H.; Levin, S.A.; Rovenskaya, E.; Stenseth, N.C. What is blue growth? The semantics of “Sustainable Development” of marine environments. Mar. Policy 2018, 87, 177–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. The Blue Growth Scenarios and Drivers for Sustainable Growth from the Oceans, Seas and Coasts. Final Report; DG MARE; European Commission: Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Barbesgaard, M. The blue growth: Saviour or ocean grabbing? An international colloquium Global governance/politics, climate justice & agrarian/social justice: Linkages and challenges. Colloq. Pap. 2016, 5, 19. [Google Scholar]
- Innovation in the Blue Economy: Realising the Potential of Our Seas and Oceans for Jobs and Growth (COM(2014) 254 Final/2). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2014%3A254%3AREV1 (accessed on 4 March 2021).
- Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, 19–40. [Google Scholar]
- Boyes, S.; Elliott, M.; Murillas, A.; Uyarra, M.C. Is existing legislation fit-for-purpose to achieve Good Environmental Status in European seas? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 111, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Piwowarczyk, J.; Gee, K.; Gilek, M.; Hassler, B.; Luttmann, A.; Maack, L.; Matczak, M.; Morff, A.; Saunders, F.; Stalmokaitė, I.; et al. Insights into integration challenges in the Baltic Sea Region marine spatial planning: Implications for the HELCOM-VASAB principles. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 125, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaucha, J.; Pardus, J. Editorial: Sea dragons. Eur. XXI 2019, 36, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kannen, A. Challenges for marine spatial planning in the context of multiple sea uses, policy arenas and actors based on experiences from the German North Sea. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2014, 14, 2139–2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyriazi, Z. From identification of compatibilities and conflicts to reaching marine spatial allocation agreements. Review of actions required and relevant tools and processes. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 166, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schupp, M.F.; Bocci, M.; Depellegrin, D.; Kafas, A.; Kyriazi, Z.; Lukic, I.; Schultz-Zehden, A.; Krause, G.; Onyango, V.; Buck, B.H. Toward a Common Understanding of Ocean Multi-Use. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calado, H.M.; Papaioannou, E.A.; MarioCaña-Varona, M.; Onyango, V.; Zaucha, J.; Przedrzymirska, J.; Vergílio, M. Multi-uses in the Eastern Atlantic: Building bridges in maritime space. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 174, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Przedrzymirska, J.; Zaucha, J.; Bocci, M.; Buck, B.H.; Cana Varona, M.; Depellgrin, D.; Fairgrieve, R.; Gregório Pina Calado, H.M.; Horta de Sousa Vergílio, M.; Kafas, A.; et al. Multi-use of the sea: From research to practice. In Proceedings of the SHS Web of Conferences GLOBMAR 2018, Gdańsk, Poland, 18–20 September 2018; Volume 58, p. 1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Przedrzymirska, J.; Depellegrin, D.; Barbanti, A.; Venier, C.; Vassilopoulou, V.; Kyriazi, Z.; Maniopoulou, M.; Mourmouris, A. Comparative Analysis among Sea Basins; MUSES Project: Edinburgh, UK, 2018; Available online: https://muses-project.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/70/2018/06/D2-6-Final-Report.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2021).
- Gee, K.; Siedschlag, D. A place-based perspective on marine and coastal space. Eur. XXI 2019, 36, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Zaucha, J.; Bocci, M.; Depellegrin, D.; Lukic, I.; Buck, B.H.; Schupp, M.; Caña Varona, M.; Buchanan, B.; Kovacheva, A.; Karachle, P.K. Analytical Framework (AF)—Analysing Multi-Use (MU) in the European Sea Basins; MUSES Project: Edinburgh, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bocci, M.; Sangiuliano, S.J.; Sarretta, A.; Ansong, J.O.; Buchanan, B.; Kafas, A.; Caña-Varona, M.; Onyango, V.; Papaioannou, E.; Ramieri, E.; et al. Multi-use of the sea: A wide array of opportunities from site-specific cases across Europe. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Onyango, V.; Papaioannou, E.; Schupp, M.F.; Zaucha, J.; Przedzymirska, J.; Lukic, I.; Caña Varona, M.; Schultz-Zehden, A.; Giannelos, I.; Läkamp, R.; et al. Is Demonstrating the Concept of Multi-Use Too Soon for the North Sea? Barriers and Opportunities from a Stakeholder Perspective. Coast. Manag. 2020, 48, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noy, C. Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in Qualitative Research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2008, 11, 327–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heckathorn, D.D. Respondent-Driven Sampling: A New Approach to the Study of Hidden Populations. Soc. Probl. 1997, 44, 174–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voicu, M.-C.; Babonea, A.-M. Using the Snowball Method in Marketing Research on Hidden Populations. Chall. Knowl. Soc. 2011, 1, 1341–1351. [Google Scholar]
- Johnston, L.G.; Sabin, K. Sampling hard-to-reach populations with respondent driven sampling. Methodol. Innov. Online 2010, 5, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piasecki, W.; Głąbiński, Z.; Francour, P.; Koper, P.; Saba, G.; Molina García, A.; Únal, V.; Karachle, P.K.; Lepetit, A.; Tservenis, R.; et al. Pescatourism—A European review and perspective. Acta. Ichthyol. Piscat. 2016, 46, 325–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Przedrzymirska, J.; Zaucha, J.; Lazic, M.; Depellegrin, D.; Barbanti, A.; Venier, C.; Vassilopoulou, V.; Kyriazi, Z.; Maniopoulou, M.; Mourmouris, A.; et al. Multi-Use Concept in European Sea Basins; MUSES Project: Edinburgh, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- The Blue Growth Opportunities for Marine and Maritime Sustainable Growth (COM (2012) 494 Final). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52012DC0494 (accessed on 15 March 2021).
- Sustainable Blue Growth Agenda for the Baltic Sea Region (SWD (2014) 167 Final). Available online: https://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/attachments/article/590671/Adopted%20SWD%20Blue%20growth%20agenda%2016.05.2014(1).pdf (accessed on 17 April 2021).
- Black Sea Synergy—A New Regional Cooperation Initiative (COM (2007) 160 Final). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0160:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed on 14 March 2021).
- The Ministerial Declarations of the Union for the Mediterranean on the Blue Economy. Available online: https://ufmsecretariat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-17-declaration-on-blue-economy_en.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2021).
- A Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Seas (COM (2012) 713 Final). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0713:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed on 12 February 2021).
- Action Plan Concerning the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (SWD (2014) 190 Final). Available online: https://www.adriatic-ionian.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/EUSAIR-ACTION-PLAN-17-June-2014.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2021).
- Research and Innovation Initiative for Blue Jobs and Growth in the Mediterranean Area. Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda. Available online: http://www.bluemed-initiative.eu/strategic-research-and-innovation-agenda (accessed on 10 February 2021).
- Declaration of the Meeting of the Ministers of the Countries Participating in the Initiative for the Sustainable Development of the Blue Economy in the Western Mediterranean. Available online: https://ufmsecretariat.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/DeclarationofthemeetingoftheMinistersofthecountriesparticipatingintheinitiativeforthesustainabledevelopmentoftheblueeconomyintheWesternMediterranean.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2021).
- Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (European Commission). Action Plan for a Maritime Strategy in the Atlantic Area (COM (2013) 279 Final). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0279&from=IT (accessed on 5 March 2021).
- Strategic Cooperation on Blue Growth in the North Sea-Workshop Report. Regional Economic & Innovation Dynamics Consulting SPRL. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312338486StrategicCooperationonBlueGrowthintheNorthSea-workshopreport (accessed on 15 February 2021).
- ICES. Report of the Workshop on Co-Existence and Synergies in Marine Spatial Planning (WKCSMP); CM 2018/HAPISG:23; ICES: Edinburgh, UK, 2018; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
- HM Government UK Marine Policy Statement 2011. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-marine-policy-statement (accessed on 20 February 2021).
- National Strategy for the Sea and Coast Decree 2017-222 of 23 February 2017. Available online: http://www.geolittoral.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/17094_strategie-nationale-pour-la-mer-et-le-littoral_en_fev2017.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2021).
- Hassler, B.; Gee, K.; Gilek, M.; Luttmann, A.; Morf, A.; Saunders, F.; Stalmokaite, I.; Strand, H.; Zaucha, J. Collective Action and Agency in Baltic Sea Marine Spatial Planning: Transnational Policy Coordination in the Promotion of Regional Coherence. Mar. Policy 2018, 92, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Wind Energy & Aquaculture 1||Wind Energy & Tourism||Wind Energy & Fisheries||Aquaculture & Tourism||Fisheries & Tourism & Environmental Protection||Underwater Cultural Heritage & Tourism & Environmental Protection 2,3||Tide & Wave||Wind Energy & Shipping terminal||Wave & Aquaculture||Aquaculture & Environmental Protection|
|MU Name||Atlantic||North Sea||Baltic Sea||Mediterranean||Black Sea|
|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||-||1/1||5/3||2|
|MU6||Underwater Cultural Heritage and Tourism and Environmental Protection||3||-||4/2||1/4||2|
|Explanation: The ‘existing’ category includes trial/pilot cases in the real environment that are ongoing or have been discontinued. The ‘having potential’ category constitutes hypothetical MU combinations considered by stakeholders as the most promising.|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Przedrzymirska, J.; Zaucha, J.; Calado, H.; Lukic, I.; Bocci, M.; Ramieri, E.; Varona, M.C.; Barbanti, A.; Depellegrin, D.; de Sousa Vergílio, M.; et al. Multi-Use of the Sea as a Sustainable Development Instrument in Five EU Sea Basins. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158159
Przedrzymirska J, Zaucha J, Calado H, Lukic I, Bocci M, Ramieri E, Varona MC, Barbanti A, Depellegrin D, de Sousa Vergílio M, et al. Multi-Use of the Sea as a Sustainable Development Instrument in Five EU Sea Basins. Sustainability. 2021; 13(15):8159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158159Chicago/Turabian Style
Przedrzymirska, Joanna, Jacek Zaucha, Helena Calado, Ivana Lukic, Martina Bocci, Emiliano Ramieri, Mario Cana Varona, Andrea Barbanti, Daniel Depellegrin, Marta de Sousa Vergílio, and et al. 2021. "Multi-Use of the Sea as a Sustainable Development Instrument in Five EU Sea Basins" Sustainability 13, no. 15: 8159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158159