Comparative analysis of top-down and bottom-up approaches in maritime spatial planning

This paper presents a comparative analysis of top-down and bottom-up approaches in Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP), with a focus on Estonia (EE) and New Zealand (NZ). Estonia's MSP, mandated by the European Union’s MSP Directive, is characterised by a top-down approach, with government policies dominating the planning process. Conversely, the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan (HGMSP) in NZ exemplifies a bottom-up approach, characterised by a collaborative, stakeholder-led process integrating Indigenous knowledge and scientific data. Our analysis identified key strengths and limitations of both approaches. EE’s legally binding plan offers strong legal authority, clear responsibilities, and enforceable conditions but is less flexible in addressing new knowledge and faces challenges in fully engaging diverse stakeholder groups. In contrast, NZ’s non-statutory plan enables strong stakeholder leadership and broad participation, including Indigenous communities, but lacks formal enforcement mechanisms and sufficient resourcing to support long-term implementation. The analysis emphasises the significance of flexible and inclusive MSP strategies for achieving a balance between socio-economic development and marine ecosystem conservation. By comparing these two real-world examples, this study highlights how both systems provide valuable lessons and complementary insights for improving future MSP practices.