Randomized trial assessed strategic communication impacts in diverse stakeholders, suggesting strong outreach efficacy.
The MSP4BIO project recognised the effective implementation of a strategic communication and dissemination plan as a central pillar of its’ success and achieved strong and wide-reaching outreach, surpassing initial KPIs and ensuring high visibility for its results. The project website became a central hub with 65 blog posts and over 35,000 visits, supported by effective cross-platform promotion. LinkedIn proved to be the most impactful social media channel, attracting over 800 followers and strong engagement from research, policy, and education professionals. Participation in more than 120 events enabled direct knowledge exchange with over 15,000 stakeholders, while targeted activities like the Science-Policy Think Tanks and validation workshops helped strengthen policy relevance. Strategic collaboration with related initiatives and features on prominent platforms such as CINEA, EU MSP Platform, and Mission Ocean significantly expanded the project’s reach, leading to an overall outreach audience of 640,000 people. With collaborative tools like newsletters, factsheets, policy briefs, and scientific publications in place - even beyond the project’s lifespan - MSP4BIO is well positioned to support upcoming EU policy processes and ensure long-term impact. Building on this strong dissemination foundation, the Exploitation Roadmap presented in the second part of the report outlines how MSP4BIO’s tools, knowledge, and policy recommendations can continue to be used, scaled, and adapted. It captures both the exploitation activities already undertaken and future pathways to ensure the project's legacy. The roadmap provides guidance on how diverse stakeholders—including MSP planners, MPA managers, regional authorities, and EU institutions—can adopt and operationalize MSP4BIO outputs to strengthen biodiversity integration in Maritime Spatial Planning across Europe and beyond.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jaspert et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: