Search

Successfully managing current threats to marine resources and ecosystems is largely dependent on our ability to understand and manage human behavior. In recent times we have seen increased growth in research to understand the human dimension of marine resource use, and the associated implications for management. However, despite progress to date, marine research and management have until recently largely neglected the critically important role of "sense of place," and its role in influencing the success and efficacy of management interventions. To help address this gap we review the existing literature from various disciplines, e.g., environmental psychology, and sectors, both marine and nonmarine sectors, to understand the ways is which sense of place has been conceptualized and measured. Doing so we draw on three key aspects of sense of place, person, place, and process, to establish a framework to help construct a more organized and consistent approach for considering and representing sense of place in marine environmental studies. Based on this we present indicators to guide how sense of place is monitored and evaluated in relation to marine resource management, and identify practical ways in which this framework can be incorporated into existing decision-support tools. This manuscript is a first step toward increasing the extent to which sense of place is incorporated into modeling, monitoring, and management decisions in the marine realm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The term "social licence to operate" (SLO), popularized in corporate usage over the last 20 years, is frequently used to refer to the level of social approval that exists in relation to the development of natural resources for private or public purposes. However, the theoretical and practical utility of the concept remains contested and it is often used opportunistically to advance individual agendas. Moreover, it remains difficult to assess how an adequate level of SLO can be transparently assessed, or how dialogue can be appropriately achieved. In this paper we argue that the increasing use of the SLO concept is an indication that trust in, and the legitimacy of, formal regulatory processes for natural resource management has eroded and needs to be reimagined. In response, we outline five principles that provide pathways to increase the legitimacy of, and trust in, regulatory approval processes: (i) clear regulatory objectives; (ii) transparent regulatory approval processes; (iii) clear pathways for appeals and reviews of regulatory decisions (iv) early and inclusive collaborative consultation process; and (v) independence of decision-making authorities. By rethinking the basic principles of regulatory and licencing processes in natural resource management, our five principles aim to reduce the need for SLO. This could minimize erratic decision making and inequitable approval processes that are driven by a perceived need for SLO, often only for the corporate sector, which risks the voices of other stakeholders being unevenly represented. We draw upon natural resource management experiences from Tasmania, Australia as illustrative examples to stimulate a discussion on the usefulness of SLO and the need for improved approaches to natural resource management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We seek to contribute to the scholarship on operationalizing resilience concepts via a working resilience indicator framework. Although it requires further refinement, this practical framework provides a useful baseline for generating awareness and understanding of the complexity and diversity of variables that impinge on resilience. It has potential value for the evaluation, benchmarking, monitoring, and reporting of marine system resilience. The necessity for such a framework is a consequence of the levels of complexity and uncertainty associated with climate change and other global change stressors in marine social- ecological systems, and the problems involved in assessing their resilience. There is a need for: (1) methodologies that bring together knowledge from diverse sources and disciplines to investigate the complexity and uncertainty of interactions between climate, ocean, and human systems and (2) frameworks to facilitate the evaluation and monitoring of the social-ecological resilience of marine-dependent sectors. Accordingly, our main objective is to demonstrate the virtues of combining a case study methodology with complex adaptive systems approaches as a means to improve understanding of the multifaceted dynamics of marine sectors experiencing climate change. The resilience indicator framework, the main product of the methodology, is developed using four case studies across key Australian marine biodiversity and resource sectors already experiencing impacts from climate and other global changes. It comprises a set of resilience dimensions with a candidate set of abstract and concrete resilience indicators. Its design ensures an integrated approach to resilience evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Knowledge co-production (KCP) is presented as an effective strategy to inform responses to complex coastal and marine social-ecological challenges. Co-production processes are further posited to improve research and decision outcomes in a wide range of problem contexts (e.g., biodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation), for example, by facilitating social learning among diverse actors. As such, KCP processes are increasingly centered in global environment initiatives such as the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. However, KCP is not a panacea, and much uncertainty remains about its emergence and implementation, in particular, the manner in which broader governance contexts determine the interplay of knowledge, power, and decision-making. Three objectives guide our analysis: (1) to interrogate more fully the interplay among social relations of power, knowledge production practices, and the (colonial) governance contexts in which they are embedded; (2) to consider the challenges and limitations of KCP in particular places by drawing attention to key governance themes and their implications for achieving better outcomes; and (3) to work toward a fuller understanding of "deep KCP" that cautions against a tendency to view knowledge processes in coastal and marine governance settings as an instrumental or techno-managerial problem. A qualitative and reflective approach was used to examine multiple dimensions of the interplay of KCP, governance, and power in several marine and coastal contexts, including Canada, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea. In particular, our analysis highlights the importance of: (1) recognizing diverse motivations that frame co-production processes; (2) the manner in which identities, positionality, and values influence and are influenced by governance contexts; (3) highlighting governance capacity with respect to spatial and temporal constraints; (4) institutional reforms necessary for KCP and the links to governance; and (5) the relationship between knowledge sharing, data sovereignty, and governance. We seek to encourage those involved in or considering co-production initiatives to engage carefully and critically in these processes and make co-production more than a box to tick. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public engagement on climate change is a vital concern for both science and society. Despite more people engaging with climate change science today, there remains a high-level contestation in the public sphere regarding scientific credibility and identifying information needs, interests, and concerns of the non-technical public. In this paper, we present our response to these challenges by describing the use of a novel "public-powered" approach to engaging the public through submitting questions of interest about climate change to climate researchers before a planned engagement activity. Employing thematic content analysis on the submitted questions, we describe how those people we engaged with are curious about understanding climate change science, including mitigating related risks and threats by adopting specific actions. We assert that by inviting the public to submit their questions of interest to researchers before an engagement activity, this step can inform why and transform how actors engage in reflexive dialogue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]