Engaging Los Angeles County subsistence anglers in the California marine protected area planning process

Ecosystem-based management is more successful when a great diversity of stakeholders is engaged early in a decision-making process. Implementation of the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) has been stakeholder-based, coordinating the participation of a wide range of people including divers, fishermen, conservationists, local officials, business owners and coastal residents. Although commercial and recreational fishermen have actively participated throughout the MLPA implementation process, and research related to California’s sport and commercial fisheries has been integrated into the process, pier and shore anglers have been relatively unengaged as stakeholders. This study was completed to generate information about pier angler understanding and sentiment towards marine protected areas (MPAs), as well as to educate anglers on the MLPA implementation process in southern California and inform them on involvement opportunities. Of the 3030 pier anglers surveyed over 12 months, 78% only fish for subsistence from piers and from shore (never from boats); 84.6% are of non-White/Euro-American ethnicity and speak English as a second language; and 82% indicated that they were supportive of establishing a strong network of MPAs in southern California, specifically fully-protective no-take marine reserves. This study is an example of an alternative and customized method of outreach designed to reach a unique and previously unengaged stakeholder group, which stands to be affected by the implementation of the MLPA in California. Engaging such non-traditional stakeholders in public policy may be critical for decision makers to gauge all views from those standing to be affected by a policy—not just the views of those that regularly attend policy meetings—and for the ultimate success of policy implementation and community support.     

Ambivalent climate of opinions: Tensions and dilemmas in understanding geoengineering experimentation

Due to the fear of the consequences of climate change, many scientists today advocate the research into—but not deployment of—geoengineering, large-scale technological control of the global climate, to reduce the uncertainty around its efficacy and harms. Scientists propose in particular initiating field trials of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). This paper examines how the meanings of geoengineering experimentation, specifically SAI field trials, are reconfigured in the deliberation of the lay public. To this end, we conducted focus groups with Japanese citizens in June 2015 on the geoengineering concept and SAI field trials. Our main findings are as follows: the ‘climate emergency’ framing compelled the lay public to accept, either willingly or reluctantly, the need for ‘geoengineering research’; however, public discourse on SAI field trials was ambiguous and ambivalent, involving both tensions and dilemmas in understanding what the SAI field trial is for and about. Our results exhibit how the lay public wrestles with understanding the social, political, and ethical implications of SAI field trials in multiple dimensions, namely, accountability, controllability, predictability, and desirability. The paper argues that more clarity in the term ‘geoengineering research’ is needed to facilitate inclusive and pluralistic debates on geoengineering experimentation and not to preemptively arrive at a consensus that ‘we need more research.’ We conclude that ambivalence about both the pros and cons of geoengineering experimentation seems to be enduring; thus, instead of ignoring or repressing it, embracing ambivalence is required to keep the geoengineering debate democratic and inclusive.     

Navigating climate crises in the Great Barrier Reef

A dramatic escalation of extreme climate events is challenging the capacity of environmental governance regimes to sustain and improve ecosystem outcomes. It has been argued that actors within adaptive governance regimes can help to steer environmental systems toward sustainability in times of crisis. Yet there is little empirical evidence of how acute climate crises are navigated by actors operating within adaptive governance regimes, and the factors that influence their responses. Here, we qualitatively assessed the actions key governance actors took in response to back-to-back mass coral bleaching – an extreme climate event – of the Great Barrier Reef in 2016 and 2017, and explored their perceptions of barriers and catalysts to these responses. This research was, in part, a product of collaboration and knowledge co-production with Great Barrier Reef governance actors aimed at improving responses to climate crises in the region. We found five major categories of activity that actors engaged with in the wake of recurrent mass coral bleaching: assessing the scale and extent of bleaching, sharing information, communicating bleaching to the public, building local resilience, and addressing global threats. These actions were both catalyzed and hindered by a range of factors that fall within different domains of adaptive capacity; such as assets, social organization, and agency. We discuss the implications of our findings as they relate to existing research on adaptive capacity and adaptive governance. We conclude by coalescing insights from our interviews and a participant engagement process to highlight four key ways in which the ability of governance actors, and the Great Barrier Reef governance regime more broadly, can be better prepared for, and more effectively respond to extreme climate events. Our research provides empirical insight into how crises are experienced by governance actors in a large-scale environmental system, potentially providing lessons for similar systems across the globe.     

Constraints on community engagement with Great Barrier Reef climate change reduction and mitigation

Engaging stakeholders in Great Barrier Reef climate change reduction and mitigation strategies is central to efforts aimed at reducing human impacts on the reef and increasing its resilience to climate change. We developed a theoretical framework to investigate subjective and objective constraints on cognitive, affective, and behavioural engagement with the Great Barrier Reef climate change issue. A survey of 1623 Australian residents revealed high levels of cognitive and affective engagement with the Great Barrier Reef climate change issue, but that behavioural engagement was limited by objective constraints that intervene between individuals’ desire to become engaged (affective engagement) and their ability to take relevant actions. Individuals were constrained from increasing their engagement with the Great Barrier Reef climate change issue primarily by lack of knowledge about actions they can take, lack of time, and having other priorities. Individuals’ age, gender, education level, income, and place of residence influenced the probability that they would experience these and other specific constraints on engagement. We suggest that future Great Barrier Reef engagement strategies must endeavour to identify specific behaviour that individuals can undertake to help reduce the impact of climate change on the reef, and find ways to help people overcome the constraints they face on engagement in those activities. The theoretical framework we developed should be useful for investigating constraints on engagement with other environmental issues, but further empirical and conceptual work is necessary.     

NRM engagement between remote dryland communities and government agencies: Success factors from Australia

The management of dryland environments involves the interaction of multiple government agencies and citizens, and is required to respond to a wide range of responsibilities and aspirations for a given region. This paper focuses on the characteristics of engagement between management agencies and citizens in a dryland region, presented here as a series of success factors. These factors are based on empirical research carried out in the Lake Eyre Basin in Australia, one of the world’s largest inwardly draining basins. The results reinforce generic and dryland-specific factors supporting successful community engagement. The former, such as building trust, working in partnership, supporting community champions, and maintaining transparency, are necessary but insufficient for achieving successful community engagement in the case study region. In addition, community engagement in the case study region also required respecting the extreme conditions and extraordinary variability of the Basin and committing to longer timeframes even if the outcomes of community engagement are slow to accrue, in order to take advantage of opportunities in more prosperous times.     

Community Stories: Explaining Resistance to Street Tree-Planting Programs in Detroit,Michigan, USA

Non-profit organizations are key actors in urban and community forestry (UCF) initiatives, and sometimes city residents resist their efforts. Between 2011-2014, 24 percent of residents offered a street tree in Detroit, Michigan, USA submitted a “no-tree request.” Differing views on decision-making emerged as a main reason for resistance to tree planting. This study used interviews with city residents, and those within a non-profit organization, between 2014-2016 to understand reasons for conflict over decision-making between these groups. Heritage narratives, or selective representations of the city’s history and character, helped explain conflict over tree planting. Residents who wanted greater decision-making power in tree planting assumed they would be responsible for stewardship, reflecting their historical experiences within the city. The organization’s dominant heritage narrative emphasized that residents held misperceptions of trees based on negative past experiences, and required education on benefits of trees. Recommendations for integrating heritage narratives into UCF efforts are provided.     

Characterizing Non-Industrial Private Forest Landowners' Forest Management Engagement and Advice Sources

Non-industrial private forestland (NIPF) owners have options for engagement by following management strategies that reduce wildfire risk on their forestlands. Forest management engagement is a broad term with underlying categories and management implications. To better understand these categories, we examine interview data on the engagement of forest landowners from a case study of private forestland owner perspectives in northeast Oregon, USA. NIPF landowners outline two types of forest management engagement, one for property and one for community-focused forestland management. NIPF owners describe actions for engagement in public forestland management and how these actions differ from engagement in private management. Additionally, NIPF owners establish barriers to engagement in both public and private forestland management. Our findings can be used to better identify unengaged private forestland owners in the U.S. West, informing the design and implementation of extension and outreach for NIPF owners.