Sustainable management of coastal ecosystems requires engaged communities—communities that support sustainable management policies and are willing to adopt behaviours that promote waterway health. Information provision is a common component of engagement practices, yet little is known about what type of information will most effectively motivate engaged communities. We conducted an experimental study (N = 702) examining the effectiveness of different messages about benefits of sustainable coastal management. We examined two messages about cultural ecosystem services (economic benefits and lifestyle benefits), messages focused on conservation benefits, and a ‘control’ message, which mentioned threats to coastal ecosystems but no benefits of management. We also compared the effect of factual and moral arguments on engagement outcomes. Overall, economic messages generated lower intentions to adopt household behaviours, and reduced information seeking across the whole sample. Moral arguments were not more effective than messages using factual arguments. In fact, factual arguments were associated with greater policy support and behavioural intentions. We also examined the role of participant values, political orientation and knowledge on message effectiveness. Participants with a conservative political orientation exhibited poorer responses to framed messages, compared with the control message. These findings highlight the importance of considering message content when communicating with communities. Specifically, messages about ecosystem services may not be superior to environmental messages when communicating about local issues. Recommendations for effective communication commonly suggest aligning messages with audience values. While our findings do not contradict this, they do serve as a reminder to avoid simple assumptions about what these values may entail, and that groups less supportive of conservation goals are likely to require more specific strategies to enhance communication effectiveness.
Are coastal communities relevant in fisheries management? Starting from what Svein Jentoft has had to say about the topic, we explore the idea that viable fishing communities require viable fish stocks, and viable fish stocks require viable fishing communities. To elaborate and expand on Jentoft’s arguments, first, we discuss values as a key attribute of communities that confer the ability to manage coastal resources. Turning to power, next we explore why fishing communities need to be empowered by having the opportunity to self-manage or co-manage resources. Third, regarding community viability, we make the argument that (1) rebuilding or maintaining viable fishing communities and fish stocks cannot succeed without first dealing with vulnerabilities, and that (2) the dimensions of vulnerability involve increase/decrease in well-being, better/poorer access to capitals, and building/losing resilience. The idea that healthy fishing communities and healthy fish stocks require one another implies a viable system that contains both, a social-ecological system view. The values embedded in communities enable them to manage resources. Thus, managers and policy makers need to imagine healthy fishing communities who take care of resources, and this positive image of communities is more likely than present policies to lead to viable fishing communities as well as viable fish stocks.
Collective engagement and inclusiveness have been in growing demand particularly within the context of managing natural resources. Here, a natural and a social scientist report on a case that the two have participated over the past decade, supported by a transdisciplinary evaluation framework. With the aid of a boundary scientist external to the process, analysis focuses on the delivery and update of spatial regulation and fishery management rules in a Marine Protected Area (Marine Park professor Luíz Saldanha) in Arrábida, Portugal, the temporal dynamics in key elements of collaboration and the building up of social, intellectual and political capital in the system. Long-term collective engagement showed that the emergence of key actors and the progression towards an outcome-driven agenda might have the downside to partially demobilize less active members. Further, the increased legitimacy of group action provided by institutional recognition may diminish adaptive capacity and group resilience. Nevertheless, negotiated group proposals to alter the bundles of fishing rights in the system and shaping of boundary objects with relevance to marine sustainability demonstrate that collective action by a community of practice can operate for long periods and deliver more than a compilation of individual wish-lists or noncommittal declarations.
Taiwan has advantages in the development of offshore wind power, as it has abundant wind energy resources at the seas. The local government has developed a series of measures to promote the development of wind power generation industry. The development of offshore wind farm in Taiwan, however, has to solve the problems that offshore wind farms are overlapping with some traditional fishing grounds and are unable to reach consensus with relevant stakeholders. This paper starts from the great potential of offshore wind power in Taiwan and the active promotion of the government, and analyses the impact and possible opportunities brought by offshore wind farm development to local fisheries, from the perspective of Zhanghua Area, a key area of development of offshore wind farm in Taiwan. This paper proposes that the local government in Taiwan should use marine spatial planning as a tool, through the comprehensive participation of government, developers, fishermen and other bodies, seeking the coexistence and prosperity of offshore wind farm and fisheries. Avoidance, compensation, and feedback, as well as communication and collaboration will be an important strategy to solve the conflicts of multiple use of the sea and to promote the development of marine renewable energy.
In the CMSP decision-making process, as outlined in the NOP, decision-making authority is provided to the regional planning bodies, which are composed of federal, tribal, and state officials. The NOP recognizes that the coastal and marine spatial plans will need to respond to the needs of all who rely on the marine environment for economic and environmental services, and that effective consultation with the full range of these groups is essential to build the relationships needed to achieve national and regional goals for ocean management. Therefore, stakeholder involvement in the development of regional plans is an important responsibility assigned to the regional planning bodies.
The purpose of this document is to provide an overarching set of suggested principles for effectively engaging all stakeholders in a CMSP process. In developing this informational resource document, the Udall Foundation’s U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (U.S. Institute) reviewed current and past CMSP stakeholder processes in the United States and internationally, analyzed academic literature on stakeholder engagement best practices, and reviewed surveys and white papers about desirable stakeholder involvement mechanisms from various interest groups, including government, tribal, environmental and ocean user groups. The principles described in this document are drawn from this research and from the U.S. Institute’s experience in developing similar guidelines for a range of complex federal and regional stakeholder involvement efforts.
Coastal resource management requires the resolution of local resource use conflicts. The research on coastal conflict resolution is still scarce despite the progress made in fisheries and marine related conflict studies. Utilizing qualitative methodology this paper makes comparative analyses of strengths and deficits of coastal conflict resolution practices in three conflicts from the Swedish west coast and five conflicts from the United Kingdom, Italy and Belgium, all studied in the context of the European research project SECOA (Solutions to Environmental Contrasts in Coastal Areas). The analyses focus on power relations among the stakeholders and their practices of knowledge use, including knowledge integration and joint learning. The results show deficits of research and practical neglect of these aspects in coastal management. In the discussion the question of how approaches to conflict resolution can be improved and integrated into long-term strategies of sustainable resource management in coastal areas is addressed. It is concluded that complex conflicts over natural resource use require context specific combinations of formal and informal resolution methods. The interconnected components of transformation of power relations, knowledge integration and joint learning are seen as key components of conflict resolution.
Environmental conflicts are multi-dimensional. Individual components of environmental and resource-related conflicts are closely interlinked with other structural societal elements, including economic, social, political and cultural developments. Coastal areas are significant for people’s subsistence, as well as industrial development, cultural heritage, and waterways; therefore, they require integrated research approaches and the implementation of comprehensive strategies of resource management, dispute resolution and conflict prevention. This qualitative exploratory study contributes to the development of the field of environmental conflict resolution (ECR) by examining the perceptions and experiences of 52 key stakeholders from the coastal areas of the Great Lakes region of Canada and the United States (US) with regards to environmental and resource conflicts and conflict resolution approaches. The study invited coastal stakeholders such as environmental policymakers, researchers, academics, educators and NGO members to share their perceptions, images, experiences and knowledge about environmental and resource conflicts and conflict resolution practices in the coastal areas of the Great Lakes. The framework of this holistic study integrates public policy, alternative dispute resolution, conflict analysis, project evaluation, dialogue and public participation, education and other creative interventions into an inclusive strategy of integrated environmental and resource management of coastal areas. Analysis of the study participants’ responses revealed several key findings. First, the multi-dimensional character of environmental and resource conflicts and the wide range of coastal stakeholders involved necessitate creating spaces for dialogue and communication among coastal stakeholders, which may facilitate relationship building and encourage collaborative problem solving and constructive conflict resolution. Second, establishing links between science and policymaking within environmental and resource management, as well as introducing conflict resolution education for coastal stakeholders, may significantly enhance the capacity of coastal stakeholders in ECR. Third, coastal stakeholders in the Great Lakes have an extensive and wide-ranging existing local knowledge, experience and expertise in resolving environmental and resource conflicts. Fourth, a conflict resolution system’s design developed in this study may serve as an integrated framework for the analysis and resolution of environmental and resource conflicts. This ECR system design involves such important components as conducting conflict and stakeholder analysis; identifying the root causes of conflict; bringing conflict participants together to discuss resolution options; and building in continuous evaluation of environmental conflict resolution processes.
From 2009 to 2011, marine spatial planning (MSP) rapidly gained visibility in the United States as a promising ocean management tool. A few small-scale planning efforts were completed in state waters, and the Obama Administration proposed a framework for large-scale regional MSP throughout the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. During that same time period, the authors engaged a variety of U.S ocean stakeholders in a series of dialogs with several goals: to share information about what MSP is or could be, to hear stakeholder views and concerns about MSP, and to foster better understanding between those who depend on ocean resources for their livelihood and ocean conservation advocates. The stakeholder meetings were supplemented with several rounds of in-depth interviews and a survey. Despite some predictable areas of conflict, project participants agreed on a number of issues related to stakeholder engagement in MSP: all felt strongly that government planners need to engage outsiders earlier, more often, more meaningfully, and through an open and transparent process. Equally important, the project affirmed the value of bringing unlike parties together at the earliest opportunity to learn, talk, and listen to others with whom they rarely engage.
There is surprisingly little information available on stakeholder management in the evolving and dynamic field of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP). Based on the experiences made during the pilot planning processes in the framework of the BaltSeaPlan project (2009--2012) this report provides recommendations and information about the reasons and rationales for stakeholder involvement in maritime spatial planning, formal and informal approaches to stakeholder involvement in maritime spatial planning, the distinctions of stakeholder involvement in maritime spatial planning, stakeholder identification and stakeholder typologyin maritime spatial planning and Tools, techniques and the right timing to interact with stakeholders.
Public participation was one of the hallmarks of the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, a planning process to support the redesign of California's system of marine protected areas (MPAs). The MLPA Initiative implemented innovative and unconventional public outreach and engagement strategies to assist local communities share relevant knowledge and data, and provide timely and targeted contributions to MPA planning discussions. This collaborative model helped broaden traditional forms of participation to ensure public input received and integrated into MPA planning legitimately reflected the interests and priorities of California's coastal communities. A number of considerations were critical to the success of this collaborative approach, including: understanding the needs and limitations of public audiences; working directly with communities to identify appropriate outreach and engagement strategies; prioritizing strategies that supported a multi-directional exchange of information; adapting strategies based on public feedback and internal lessons learned; and hiring professional public engagement specialists. Strategies evolved over time and increased the level and quality of public participation over this multi-stage planning process. Experiences gained from the MLPA Initiative can be used to encourage consideration of collaborative participation in other environmental planning and decision-making processes.