Negotiating uncertainty: Framing attitudes, prioritizing issues, and finding consensus in the coral reef environment management “crisis”

Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Negotiating uncertainty: Framing attitudes, prioritizing issues, and finding consensus in the coral reef environment management “crisis” Bärbel G. Bischof* Florida State University, Department of Geography, 323 Bellamy Building, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 8 July 2010

Environmental problems are becoming increasingly unwieldy, particularly those which are highly debated because of their political and financial consequences and have been termed as in “crisis”. In coral reef environments, these considerations spill into decisions on mitigation of reef decline and attendant questions of territorial and resource-access rights. Historical foundations of reef science show that early applications of reef inquiries centered on environmental connection and inevitably led to establishing not only the baseline of reef ecosystems, but also contributed to the evolution of conservation crisis in this environment. This work applies Q-methodology towards determining attitudes, prioritizing statements and finding consensus regarding management issues that are tied to the science of coral reef environments and their conservation “crisis”. This work delineates the social construction of attitudes, perceptions, and foundations of coral conservation science by examining the scientifically-grounded statements that constitute conservation debates. Study participants were comprised of the coral reef science and conservation professional network. The Q-sample (n ¼ 43) was structured around some central debates over the dilemmas and strategies of reef management and decline-mitigation, both recent and long-running. Four attitudes or viewpoints were isolated in terms of their preferred management models, geographic perspectives and the role scientific findings play within these core beliefs. These can be generally described as Community and Locally-centered Humanists, Scientific Idealists, Skeptical and Utilitarian Pragmatists, and Politically-oriented Positivists. Evaluating agreement about central issues showed a high degree of consensus regarding the relative importance of community input in the role of successful reef management while the highest degree of contention was seen in scalar issues such as human-environment feedback systems that are inherent in solving environmental crises. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Coral reefs, the most biodiverse shallow-water marine ecosystems, are said to be in great decline. The rate of decline of this ecosystem is reported to be increasing, both on local and global scales, and has become such that the term “crisis” is most often used to describe current circumstances [1e3]. These “rain forests of the sea” are said to be suffering the greatest rates of marine environmental deterioration in the face of global change, particularly those located near population centers and areas of intensive coastal development or when easily accessible to a variety of resource exploitation efforts, such as fishing and tourism [4e7]. Although environmental health and resource issues are not unique to these systems, the quandary that delineates reef ecosystem conservation efforts in particular is that there is no apparent scientific consensus

* 301 Sunrise Dr. #2AE, Miami, FL 3314, USA. Tel.: þ1 305 490 0644. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. 0964-5691/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.06.020

on the causes of reef degradation, the measures that would effectively mediate reef deterioration, nor how to determine what exactly constitutes a “healthy” coral reef, despite the notable progress made in coral reef-creature biology and ecology [8e12]. Prospects voiced by scientists are increasingly pessimistic regarding reefs achieving an acceptable balance with the rapidly changing environmental feedback systems that are associated with global change [7,13,14] and healthy reef environments are rare despite protected areas and conservation efforts [15,16]. Exasperation over the failure to mitigate reef decline has resulted in scientists and aligned policy makers to advocate policies with contestable strategies: instituting “no-take” marine protected areas (MPAs) that affect subsistence community livelihoods (e.g. [17,18]); performing “triage” operations that would write off the destruction of some environments as “inevitable” (e.g. [19]); and more recently, suggesting cryogenic freezing of species to conserve samples of key coral reef organisms (e.g. [20]). Although the rates of reef decline have spurred greater management efforts, these have achieved little overall success as debates intensify over which

598

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

factors are most important to address and how to mitigate them, thus making it difficult to inform policy with sound scientific consensus. Disagreements over implementation and enforcement protocols are compounded by inconsistent financial sources and questions of delegation of power and responsibilities across geopolitical boundaries. Combined, these management considerations have effectively handicapped conservation action by enhancing disagreement and inconsistencies in scientific statements, which are expected to be all-inclusive and generalizable [21e25]. To satisfy the material and social requirements for mitigating coral declines therefore suggests a need for a different approach to bridging the divide between what is known of these ecosystems in science and how this information is applied in management efforts. The financial and political risks associated with environmental action is a significant part of the calculus, as in any politicized issue, and serves to introduce another facet to whether effective policy can happen [26]. A common theme in most of the coral reef literature recognizes the complex web of environmental and ecological factors endangering coral reef ecosystems on local and global scales [8] and management strategies are as diverse as the cultures that practice them. Although policy-making efforts generally employ the advice of scientists and peer-reviewed research, epistemological questions (such as data-gathering) and the ways in which results are presented and communicated combined with geographic particularities of place (e.g. physical, social and political constraints) and contained biases, inevitably lead to uncertainty and fuel disagreement. Coral reef science and conservation is thus beset by uncertainty and competing knowledges, policy prescriptions and priorities, while the urgency for action in these threatened ecosystems continues to escalate [1,9,27e29]. Given that environmental management efforts rely so heavily on scientific accuracy to support and justify policy-decisions, the paradox generated by ontological tensions between claims of scientific objectivity and inherent uncertainty have proven particularly difficult to navigate. The response is often a call for “more science”. However, not only does this mandate discount the investments and research already completed on coral reefs, but it also poses a deadline problem given the predictions of reef demise and the implied urgency of action if ecosystem collapse is to be avoided [3,16]. Dissecting the variety of meanings and assumptions buried in the language of reef conservation discourse and clarifying the subjectivities that determine management decisions can therefore provide insight into ways of satisfying questions of uncertainty, developing consensus and determining priorities from the variety of claims based on empirical positivist scientific facts. By examining the subjectivities embedded in the competing knowledge claims about coral reef environmental science and management, we can gain new insight on how interpretations of facts are internalized and guide management decisions. By deconstructing the subjectivity that is embedded in the statements about the environment, some first steps are made towards extricating the scientific uncertainty and ontological artifacts that generate friction and disagreement [24,30]. Q-methodology (Q) provides a tool to de-emphasize the uncertainty that has paralyzed cooperative policy action [21,31e33] and determine which issues comprise core tensions in the scientific debates by separating what is accepted as truth and what topics are still churning through the mill of “normative” positivist science (in which assumptions are established, evidence elucidated, findings confirmed, uncertainties and methods questioned and tested) [24,34e36]. Q is rapidly achieved and easily applied, and particularly in environmental issues, has the power to inform debates that are constituted by the interaction between historical constructs, social network structure, and paradigms of mitigation strategies [37]. Given that problems of policy-making and environmental management are often a matter of both implicit and explicit

consensus, applying Q-methodology also shows great potential as a new way forward in addressing scientifically-grounded environmental management efforts. 2. Social construction and historical evolution of reef ecosystem science The concept of coral reef science and conservation as an issue can be revealed through an overview of the social (epistemic network) and associated material conditions, both of which have shaped the premises and define the limitations of research and management activities in these ecosystems [38e40]. A historical context is useful to trace the evolution of main controversies, reveal scientific “black boxes”, and trace how paradigms have been preferenced and distilled into perceived absolute fact [34,35,41]. By exposing the pathways through which these modern concepts were built and transformed, this view reveals a conceptual layout of the socio-political boundary conditions out of which current dominant paradigms have been fashioned, while also outlining how scientifically objective intentions have acquired subjective meanings and value [41e44]. What is understood about these ecosystems is, like in any science, grounded in its disciplinary origins, epistemologies, social networks, geographic expanse and relevance, and the evolution and milestones of major findings, which all create its developmental history and constitute its identity as a specialization and a discipline [34,39,45,46]. Tracing the construction of coral reef science and conservation issues through its historical threads provides the necessary contextual elements through which current debates are generated and negotiated, reveals the social mechanisms involved in the generation of facts and defines their distinguishing characteristics [43,44,47]. From this gaze, the conservation of coral reefs and the development of the science it applies is an environmental concept that is comprised of a conglomeration of evolving scientific narratives and anecdotes about very specific places, geographically located and socially distinct. Conditions and observations of the environment were communicated by reliable and “tested” witnesses and inquisitors who interpreted observations in accordance with Western philosophical standards of legitimate knowledge-production and validation [36,41,43,44,48]. Coral reef ecosystems are geographically distinct with unique social contexts that are defined by the nature of their particular socio-political networks. The co-constitution of cultural norms iterated through changing physical conditions of marine space together construct the unique places and politics that developed around reef ecosystems [39,49]. 2.1. Material and geopolitical contexts of reef ecosystems The particular socio-political expressions and cultures that exist in reef-rich regions emerge out of their distinct material and physical geographies; however, some generalizations can be made about the physical geography of reefs: hermatypic reef-building coral all require light for the photosynthetic symbiotic organisms that reside in the coral’s tissue called zooxanthellae. These singlecelled plants provide the extra energy needed by the coral animal to efficiently build its limestone skeleton that becomes the reef proper. To build large, healthy stands of reefs ideally requires clear, warm, well-circulated seawater, and an attendant network of creatures with highly specialized form and function to support the ecosystem. In fact, coral reef species are so obviously connected and entirely interdependent that descriptions of its ecologies are expressed in comparative analogies of a well-maintained city, complete with coral “apartments”, water filtration plants (sponges) and gardeners and landscapers (sea urchins, parrotfish, and damselfish) [8,11]. Usually, reefs are found in relatively shallow marine settings, thereby often locating them within close proximity

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

to coastal populations and associated exploitation efforts. Specific geographic circumstances, such as proximity to bays, river and sewage outflows, and oceanographic fluctuations are also factors to consider if management ideologies in and across space are to be applied in place. In general, spatial distributions of coral reefs are primarily dictated by water temperatures and fluctuations, water clarity, water chemistry, the presence of hard surfaces on which larvae can attach, and some key reef species that support the reef as an ecosystem [8]. From a global perspective, coral reefs are typically found in a belt around the equator that is bounded at about 25 N and 25 S latitude, however physical conditions and coastal features play a role in geographic location, and can alter their expected geographic range. Warm ocean currents that extend beyond typical latitudes can expand the expected distributions and populations, while high loads of river sediments into otherwise suitable coastal waters can inhibit growth. The physical setting of these ecosystems makes researching them not without practical concerns: to visit a reef usually requires a boat or other vessel, and instruments used in the marine environment to observe or take measurements rapidly corrode in salt-water and are therefore extremely costly to build and maintain when compared to most of those used in terrestrial settings. Because of their requirement for light, hermatypic corals are usually located within 30 m of the surface, however can reach greater depths. Access issues also often include the logistics for long distance travel across ocean space as some reefs, reportedly the most pristine, are found in remote locations, far from major population centers and large land-masses [15,16]. In terms of ecosystem services, the limestone structures of reefs, which often parallel the shoreline, provide coastal communities with an effective, wave energy-absorbing buffer from storms, and greater damage from hurricanes, storm surges, and shoreline erosion has been directly correlated to reef degradation. Because many already impoverished countries suffer a relatively frequent onslaught of such tempests, a natural, self-sustaining structure that aids in human survival and reduces material and social costs can be assessed as providing an extremely valuable ecosystem service in addition to its contribution as a protein source. Coral reefs are also recognized to have the highest biodiversity of species (by phyla) of any known ecosystem and have shown potential for medical uses [7,33,50,51]. Other ecosystem services provided by coral reefs include serving as nurseries for fisheries, supporting proximal fisheries (e.g. lobster, conch), and providing significant sources of protein, especially for subsistence and artisenal coastal communities in developing countries and “remote” regions (e.g. Indonesia, Caribbean, Oceania). The biogeographic location of reefs along the world’s equatorial belt places them within the jurisdictions of many different countries and cultures, geopolitical histories and places still grappling with colonial/post-colonial tensions, and the entire range of sociopolitical ideologies of territorial control: from Western territorial rules practiced by developed countries (often MPAs) [52], to deepseated communism and strict permitting systems to access marine spaces (e.g. Cuba), to indigenous tenure rights and commons management (e.g. Oceania). In contexts of international jurisdiction, because reefs require shallow, warm marine water they are therefore usually located in coastal regions, commonly within the Contiguous Zone (24 nautical miles from shore), and nearly always within the Exclusive Economic Zone (200 miles from shore), as established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [53]. For developing countries, tourist economies in tropical countries of the Caribbean and South Pacific are increasingly using reefs as part of their identity and place-specific uniqueness as an imagined “paradise” with which to build a competitive market for much-needed sources of capital [12,15,26,33,49,54,55]. In developed countries (e.g. Australia, Hawaii, Florida), reefs play a relatively

599

significant role in regional recreational and large scale commercial economies and are strictly enforced as areas of national appropriation, defined and bounded by declarations of territorial rights and consistently-enforced rules of access and use [23,56e58]. 2.2. History of reef science: “naturalist” origins The coral reef “crisis” is one of many environmental issues that began simply as an feature of practical interest to sailors and fisherfolk (mainly for navigation and resources) and fascination among adventurous Western naturalists [59e63]. The remote location of reefs (compared to the location of the development of early Western science) served to delegate them at first mainly within the realm of early Enlightenment naturalists who had the financial security or political affiliations to explore these “corners of the world” [40,43,44,64,65]. Focused interest in corals as creatures comprising a distinct ecosystem intensively began in the mid 1700s (coincident with the development of early scientific queries). The efforts of reef-creature classification were prefaced with the question of whether corals are plants or animals, a debate that can be traced back to the sixth century [63]. Aside from the ongoing biological census-taking endeavors, coral reef science as a categorical subject of scientific interest initially began in the early- to mid-1800s, but more as a tool to answer geologic questions regarding the formation of Pacific atolls and the behavior of Earth’s crust [63e67] evolving into the public the dispute between Charles Darwin and Alexander Agassiz [42,68]. Conclusions about the formation and growth of these ecosystem determined whose hypothesis about the Earth would prevail. Lacking the technology to successfully drill to bedrock in coral atolls until the early 1900s [69,70], ensuing disagreements between followers of Darwin and Agassiz were structured around findings from a surge of oceanographic and coastal ecosystem research spawned by the dispute. The debate effectively split the epistemic community into different camps that interpreted the data to come to a wide variety of conclusions about the origins and formations of reef systems [61,71e74]. This period marks the first step in converting observations describing reef environments from the naturalists’ typically human-geographic and romantic Victorian narrative1 into the realm of stark, standardized and empirically-grounded treatise of ecological enquiries that are now accepted as scientifically-legitimate expositions of knowledge [36,44,72,75,76]. Importantly, the more rigorous approach to studying these ecosystems that came with the adoption of the scientific method began to question and qualify statements claimed as fact and motivate technological advancements [42,61,65,68,69,71,72,74]. The material and political requirements needed to conclude the DarwinAgassiz debate would not only establish the legitimacy of reef science as a speciality but also disseminate the systemized study of coral reefs to a wide variety of disciplines and motivate research on all types of reef environments across the globe. [42,59,65]. 2.3. The making of a baseline While attempting drilling to bedrock in Pacific atolls to establish origins of reef structures [65,69,70] intensive studies of reefs were

1 Early narratives of reef science included poetic and visually descriptive anecdotes about the natives, or personal impressions about cultures and customs from an obvious colonial and Euro-centric point-of-view [41,44]. Early publications, although typically including the general description of the physical geography, as well as sketches and maps of the study site, were extremely value-laden and resembled personal journal entries rather than scientific treatise (e.g. [69]).

600

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

conducted in Caribbean and Western Atlantic, financed and supported by the practical needs of finding locations for lighthouses and navigational devices. Surveys of reef environments and investigations on their environments took place in Florida’s Dry Tortugas and the Keys in the 1850s; and in Jamaica, Barbados, the eastern edges of Andros, and the remaining Bahamas in the latter part of the nineteenth century [62,78e80,81,82,83]. The polarization of the scientific community about the origin and growth of reefs soon expanded from the atoll question onto other reef types and the variety of possible interpretations about the biogeographies of reefs all over the world [62,63,65,69,82,84]. With ontological goals clearly focused on linking reefs ecosystems directly to their geologic settings and oceanographic environments, early observations of corals document environmental characteristics such as condition and appearance, geographic coverage, growth and structure-types, and narratives are replete with elaborate, descriptive details of species diversity, abundance and behavior [71,74,83,85,86]. Destruction of coral reefs was documented in the early and mid-1900s, but often attributed to “natural” causes such as storms. Dramatic images of rubble mounds and descriptions of devastation began to appear in scientific journals of the early and mid-1900s [59,78,83]. In 1933, the Hall of Ocean Life at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City opened its doors and among its infamous dioramas included the appealingly colorful reef system, not only acknowledging growing public interest in ocean environments, but also validating reef environments as a distinct ecosystem [87]. Yet, it wasn’t until the well into the 1960s, after underwater camera and video equipment and technologies had significantly advanced and commodified, thanks mostly to then-young Jacques Cousteau, that coral reefs began to capture the public imagination of Western society through dramatic images of alien creatures with weird and wondrous behaviors. Cousteau and his team returned from their maiden voyage of the Calypso with film of tropical coral reefs from the Red Sea [77,88,89]. Cousteau’s compelling narratives and colorful images quickly gained reefs the public acclaim as an important and valuable ecosystem, precariously balanced, teeming with a stunning collection of creatures that create divinely complex ecological webs. Importantly, with the invention of the regulator, SCUBA became easily accessible, spawning an entire generation of “Cousteau-kinder” with aspirations of oceanographic exploration [11,77,89,90]. Direct oversight of reefs was seen as necessary and immanent, and suggestions to create marine parkseespaces of institutional control and powereedemanded answers to difficult questions of regulation and enforcement, commons property rights, subsistence, and jurisdictional boundaries [52,56,57,91e94]. This flood of publicity was an important milestone for coral reef conservation science. Not only did these early documentaries circulate stories of scientific explorations and position reefs (and later, reef conservation) as a topic of public interest, but these early images combined with the associated scientific researches became the baseline measures of typical reefs or typical conditions [71,77,78,84]. But as coastal populations in reef regions surged during the mid-1900s, resource extraction intensified, and these same early images and documentaries became powerful affidavits of rapid ecosystem decline [4,59,79,86,95e99], therewith entrenching a conceptual baseline against which environmental changes would be measured and judged [85,91,98,99]. 2.4. Marine protected areas: a framework for control The 1960s marks the beginning stages of coordinated social and political will to protect coral reef ecosystems, evidenced by the appearance of the first marine protected areas (MPAs) [100,101]. By the late 1970s, the discourse of coral reef science resolutely

included a subtext of blame on human causation in the form of uncontrolled use, capitalist endeavors, and inadequacies of reef management prescriptions and policy enforcement, which continue to dominate as speaking-points of reef health and management related discourses [1,2,10,22,23,85,86,96,102]. By the early 1980s, marine parks had become the logical response to the burgeoning coastal populations and underscored the call for restricted use and exploitation if these systems are to be “sustainable” [103e105]. In response, reef science studies surged and it became common knowledge among reef scientists and management professionals that these ecosystems were experiencing more difficulty in recovering from all stressors, thus injecting ideas of resilience, biogeographic connections of scale and environmental conditions, and MPA types and regulatory policies [106e111]. Comparative studies grounded in the concept of Hardin’s [112] tragedy of the commons were applied to describe the problems seen in stages of reef decline [33,86,113]. With the rise in MPA creation and the need for organized oversight of politicized management systems of reefs across all geographic and socio-political scales, inter-governmental (IGO) and non-governmental organizations (NGO) sprang up throughout the 1980s. These mainly NGOs and IGOs firmly took hold, funding large, cooperative research efforts and institutionalizing research that mainly focused on determining accountability of failures in marine conservation and standardizing measures reef protection, health and valuation [10,56,114e117]. Although currently MPAs number at over five hundred, they generally are viewed as being mostly ineffective with a wide variety of explanations as to why [14,57,110,118]. Yet, the “paper-park” failures, especially in developing regions where coral reefs are most pervasive, suggest that the supporting science and sound logic that informed reef management efforts cannot override cultural identities, issues of territorial control, and the local use patterns and valuations of these environments [110,119e122]. Cultural use patterns of these systems and political ecology studies joined the ecosystem-based research as an additional ontological goal in the efforts to figure out how to manage and distribute power and resources in spaces of reefs [102,106,117,119,123,124]. Throughout the 1980s and to the 1990s, reefs had gained enough support as an issue of interest to have Congress declare an International Year of the Reef in 1997 (and another in 2008) with the mission of improving awareness of coral ecosystems and spark research in reef environments [125]. Since then, reefs have appeared more consistently in the public media as reef ecosystem services continue to decline [126]. 2.5. The present: urgency and failure Currently, the public debate on coral decline and how to contend with global environmental change motivates the research agenda for coral reefs [127,128]. The popularity of reef regions and their public exposure has resulted in the need to connect natural scientific findings about reefs to human relevance and capitalist values. As was the case regarding debates of reef origins and implications of growth-patterns, the variety of ways positivist findings of causation and mitigation of reef declines are interpreted in the current atmosphere of reef science have resounding consequences in political and social arenas [1e3,129]. The variety of geographic and cultural differences among reef-rich areas around the world has made it difficult to come up with an accepted and standardized approach to devising sound policy while a variety of motivations have applied existing data to support or discredit particular viewpoints, an example of politicization that has shown concerning results in other environmental issues [48,130,131]. With the inclusion of human agency as the causative element of decline and the wide-ranging opinions on effects and responsibilities of conservation strategies, coral reef science is now

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

widespread among nearly all disciplines and a topic of interest in the public media. Current marine policy research points to the pivotal role of socio-cultural factors in determining conservation success and the profound disjuncture between scientific findings and their applications [1,21,33,119,132,133]. Natural marine science researches are increasingly concerned regarding the effects of changing ocean chemistry caused by feedback systems of global climate change. Regional differences between reef regions are of increasing importance and tied to distinctly different social patterns of scientific exploration, colonization and trade [60,72,85,134]. Traditional knowledge systems are now emerging and forcing a re-examination of status quo management prescriptions while an emphasis is also being placed on renovating current systems of MPAs [14,57,102,135]. Scientific generalizations about the environment contain scale problems. For example, global organizations that monitor marine resources or rely on statistics regarding exploitation efforts and investments must ultimately consign to a best-estimate approach, given the inherent limits and challenges ocean space presents and the ambiguity of even the most diligent research (and reporting) efforts [eg. 136,137]. Generalizations about reefs are also not easily applied when understanding and managing an ecosystem that is geographically located and distinct yet requires cooperation across regions [21,40,138,139]. The location of reefs and the inherent material circumstances and interwoven geopolitics therefore requires many diverse social and material contingencies for its epistemic network to gain access and conduct work. Long-term scientific observation of this ecosystem is a logistical challenge at best, while the history of reef studies demonstrates that regime-like cooperation and collaboration is necessary should political will be consolidated into effective action [139e141]. Today, coral reefs are framed as existing in ecological “crisis”, with an inevitable downward trend, requiring more scientific attention and immediate action if we are to circumvent grave, costly and reverberating long-term consequences that reach far beyond these ecosystems and which fuel debate [2e4,16,110]. Cultural human geographies of the oceans are, like any space, strongly rooted in the socio-political quest for control and power over territory and resources. Consequences of colonization, capitalism, wars, and resource extraction produced organizations that in the 21st century attend to transport, trade, development, and establishing boundaries and legal frameworks, and organizing research in this marine environment [60,61,72,142,143]. Despite a fairly intricate web of research groups, grass-roots associations, non-governmental organization (NGOs), intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and governmental organizations of all types comprising the network of coral reef conservation, the number of individuals involved is limited but world-wide. Because of this relatively small epistemic community2, many reef scientists and professionals commit to several roles, such as sitting on a board of directors for an MPA, or on an editorial staff of a peer-reviewed journal, while also serving as faculty in a university or research consortium. This tendency implies a tight and highly connected scale-free network and is a prominent structural feature through which coral reef science and policies are framed, funded, debated, sanctioned and implemented [35,38,39,129,132]. 3. Sources of uncertainty in coral reef environmental science Uncertainty in science is the essential component of nonconsensus. This is not to claim uncertainty insofar as interpretation,

2 The number of individuals who hold a membership in the International Society for Reef Studies is around 800-1000, although their conferences are attended by about 3500 people on average. The coral-list serve moderated by J. Hendee at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration is about 6000 strong [144,145].

601

but rather the uncertainties inherent in limitations of what we can unequivocally know about our environment. Although this may seem like an obvious statement, it is often forgotten when it comes to claiming facts and truth, and easily entrenches contentious discourse and policy stalemate. Three particular reasons in this case form the basis for the uncertainty that makes applying Q-Methodology relevant and, in fact, highly appropriate if one is to get to the basis of some agreement among a social network of generally equally qualified individuals who share a goal of conservation and an interest in understanding progress in steps already made and science already conducted. These involve concepts of normative scientific processes, basic marine geographies, and geographies of science. 3.1. Normative scientific processes The theoretical basis on which the subject of coral reef conservation was conceived in this research is grounded in core concepts of philosophy of science and technology studies (STS). Like all cultures of methodological knowledge-seeking, coral reef research is tethered to scientific uncertainty by virtue of normative protocols that make up the production of knowledge aka “scientific fact” [34,36,146], especially when applied to understanding “nature” and the environment [147]. This uncertainty, which is necessary for advancing knowledge and expelling misleading artifacts, has in this case paralyzed action in what is generally discussed as environmental crisis by confusing “matters of fact” with “matters of concern” in its discourse. Therefore, a first step in approaching situations of environmental crisis includes qualifying uncertainty and its sources [24]. The uncertainty inherent in predictions (a primary motivator of natural scientific and technological research), even when based on “fact”, is therefore unavoidable if scientific findings are to be applied for a management goal, and has been negotiated as action based on best-guess. In environmental conservation specifically, the “urgency” assigned to the issues affect human well-being and confront environmental ethics, however also, motivate goal-oriented research that is laden with valuejudgements, contradictions, and utilitarian requirements such as predictive power [3,23,24,55]. With more academic work aimed at valuation, forecasting, and resource control, coral reefs have become politically charged issues and thereby subject to social preferencing and network constructs that can shape and influence the ontologies and management practices which materialize from them [24,43,48,106,114,115,133]. The normative scientific uncertainty plays a role in contributing to the subjective nature of the scientific claims about ecological and environmental function of reefs. Such uncertainty is a normal and necessary part of the positivist mechanism of scientific quality control, and debating it provides a stable bedrock in which to implant emerging hypotheses and plan research, a process that is ultimately a part of the shaping and reshaping of paradigms in science and knowledge-seeking [34,35,41,46]. 3.2. Marine geography Conducting research and managing marine environments is different from strategies applied in terrestrial spaces as inherent in its geography [142,148], however this is rarely made explicit when marine-based knowledge of the environment travels beyond the networks conducting the research. The material and physical geographic difference plays an enormous role in the practicalities of conducting work in the marine environment and a has had a determinate role in human histories of migration and development [39,143,149]. Its physical characteristics have also influenced perceptions and conduct in social networks and economic

602

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

connections. Simple issues of dimensionality (as the sea is a 3 dimensional space that has very different characteristics with depth) as well as temporally-determined “places” (such as the locations of ocean currents) are rarely considered in geographic enquires of ocean space. Observational techniques are also limited: despite improved technologies, even the most sophisticated (and readily accessible) remote sensing techniques cannot fully penetrate the ocean, and innovation for observation devices is expensive to develop and apply. Most “maps” of the ocean show a flat blue expanse, possibly shaded to reveal depth, with some notes or depictions of subsurface terrain. How to represent the variety of layers and movement, and the “normal” changes in time and ephemeral nature of this environment for a general audience has not yet been achieved. Data produced by advanced technologies is often proprietary or requires governmental security clearances and organizational clearances to obtain. Logistically, marine space is one in which special skills, cooperation, substantial financial support and coordination of resources is required to gain access. Politically, boundary issues are not simple in marine spaces and can be conceptualized as a semi-privatized capital-bearing commons mired in conflicting claims territorial access and resource control [41,43,113,120,133,150,151]. The combination of all of these aforementioned factors makes studying the ocean realm a particularly complex matter. Additionally, prominent governmental legislative bodies, committees, and research consortiums are involved in sanctioning research, either directly or indirectly, and thereby define conditions of preferential research agendas [43,44]. This highly connected network operating in complexly embedded organizational jurisdictions exacerbates questions of control, power and international boundaries across space and through time [46,139], enhancing the uncertainty and providing another source of debate in the coral reef environmental crisis. 3.3. Geographies of science Because of the location of reefs in non-terrestrial environments that require special access and their distribution in an environment that is not subject to any singular institutional power, conducting work on these ecosystems and their surroundings generally requires regime-like cooperation and coordination on all scales, social levels, and sensibilities of international relations [21,55,140,141]. Ongoing scientific findings and accompanying descriptions of spaces of coral reefs demonstrate that these ecosystems differ from each other to some degree because of such variances as the volume of research (and associated financial support) conducted in a particular region or reef, concerns of biodiversity, the affects of local human use patterns and applications of management strategies. Therefore, generalizations about coral reefs are difficult to apply and, in fact, can relegate potentially effective measures to the domain of local anecdotes, scientifically unconfirmed. Local variations of place thereby also contribute to the high degree of uncertainty, about competing truth-claims, and matters of causation and mitigation of environmental decline and contain controversial, institutionalized, and geographically located discourses of blame, territorial control, and resource-access rights [24,60,72,142]. Consequently, these politicized manifestations of scientific ontologies are highly contingent on the social and geographic setting from which these claims were interpreted and through which they are subsequently communicated [41,43,44,48,149]. 4. Research design & method: Q-methodology Posed by the three primary sources of uncertainty (Section 3) are significant obstacles in understanding the state of reef science

and conservation by generating competing knowledges. The decision to support a particular point-of-view by default includes subjective posturing as a consequence of internalizing facts as they are communicated through the network [35,146]. Although Likerttype surveys are commonly applied to determine the opinions among a network, this survey structure reveals little about the beliefs and subjective filters that steer interpretations of empirical findings. A methodology was therefore needed for this work that could distill the subjectivities within statements claimed as fact and determine the subjective tendencies or basic viewpoints that run through the community that is discovering and arguing them. If the attitudes that steer decision-making are better understood, the main obstacles to negotiating effective measures may be navigable. Prioritization of mitigation measures and research agendas is also crucial, as is degree of consensus on an issue, but with Likert-type models becomes a vote rather than a hierarchy that is reflected in the dispute. Q-Methodology was therefore chosen as the ideal method to shed new light on reef decline and mitigation by outlining core attitudes and finding consensus among the epistemic community of reef professionals. Q-methodology is neither an exclusively quantitative nor exclusively qualitative method, and is thus rarely presented in methods textbooks; however, this method has a substantial history in political science and social psychology, and more recently has emerged in environmental sciences [31,152,153,159]. Developed as a technique by William Stephenson in his 1935 paper in Nature [154] and expanded in a later book [155], this method in its most general sense is a fairly simple instrument with which to distill complex and diverse expressions of a contested issue. Scientifically rigorous in that it applies an accepted and commonly used statistical method of factor analysis, Q-Method is a powerful interpretative tool that can assist in understanding environmental debates and provide insight into how to navigate the obstacles that inhibit communication and action in conservation efforts [32,37,152]. This method is particularly useful for the purposes of this research because of its ability to reveal the foundations that construct the ways in which scientific findings are expressed; and also offers a way to determine which issues are highly contentious and which issues have a high level of consensus and rank their relative priority or urgency as delineated by the resulting factors [32,156]. 4.1. Theoretical basis of Q-methodology The intent of Q is to provide the subject with the materials and operational procedures necessary to provide a formal model of their own attitude. The rules for the model are the following [31]: 1. Opinions are defined as self-referent statements accepted on the grounds short of proof. They pertain instead to unresolved issues, uncertainties, doubt (or “polarized certainties3”) and other ideas on the basis of which appeals are normally made to some authority, and which are often grounded in beliefs or values. 2. The population of statements can be drawn from several sources: images, interviews, texts, or a combination of these.

3 The term “polarized certainties” is used here to describe those issues in which people have a strong opinion on one side of a debate that they believe to be true based on scientific facts. For example, there is a large population of individuals who believe that the increase in global warming will produce more hurricanes (as some peer-reviewed papers have claimed), while others believe the opposite holds true (also based on peer-reviewed scientific papers). Both camps are certain of their position, both cite peer-reviewed scientific articles, but the issue remains unresolved.

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

The key is to contain enough statements that span all of the attitudes that are of interest in the respondent population, and to ensure that the issues are represented. The respondent should have an opinion about the issue or statements, thus the audience of respondents is usually a chosen population rather than some random sampling of individuals. 3. Attitudes are operantly defined and formally modeled as factors. 4. Beliefs and values are a result of the explanations of factors. Q-Methodology scrutinizes the statements in terms of how they were prefrenced, rather than counting separately each choice made by a large number of randomly-selected “voting” individuals (as Likert methods do). In Q, the individuals are carefully chosen based on their shared interest and contextual opinions on the particular topic, in this case, coral reef conservation discourses. The validation of results is therefore a part of the discursive analysis in generating the statements, and as such, the reasoning of using (and formulating) specific statements should be justifiable according to a particular “sphere of inquiry” (See Section 4.4.). As a result, respondents (or “operants” as they are called in the method) should be individuals who most likely contain one or more of the attitudes that the researcher is seeking to clarify [157]. Keeping in mind that this methodology is mixed, it does require some qualitative and discursive analysis on the part of the researcher in both the statement-generation and, of course, the interpretation of their ordering as factors (however this essentially back-tracks the core ideas in the statements, made explicit in their generation). Subjectivity is the key word in this method, as it is this aspect the researcher is trying to capture. As a result, traditional or conventional methods of “validation” cannot apply and are, in fact, not appropriate as it would be a subjective exercise in itself to evaluate which subjectivities are “valid”, given that the respondents are carefully chosen. The general structure of subjectivity is shown in Fig. 1. Initially, it may not seem plausible to determine what could be infinity opinions into a somewhat generalizable attitude of a small group of individuals, however Keynes’ “principle of limited independent variety” maintains that despite the potential for an unwieldy number of opinions about an issue, the opinions are rooted in “laws of necessary connection”, and thus can be distilled into a limited number of characteristic attitudes that reflect particular core beliefs. Although an infinite number of opinions can exist, they are traceable to attitudes that are finite in number and

Fig. 1. Opinions are prioritized by the respondents and results are obtained through factor analysis. These result in main factors, which are clusters of individuals who have ranked the statements in a similar fashion and which together imply beliefs or core attitudes. Red circles indicate common opinions can be rooted in differing attitudes and beliefs; how and which opinions are preferenced therefore can define the inherent attitudes and beliefs.

603

are based on fundamental or core beliefs that provide the underlying reasoning inherent in the weighted opinions [157] (see Fig. 1). A key difference that characterizes Q-Methodology from the typical R-type (e.g. Likert-scale applications) of surveys predominantly applied in social science is that Q forces a preferencing of issues as they are expressed in the concourse (or collection of statements), thereby forcing respondents to see the details of the issue in relative terms and not on independent terms. Forced preferencing can reveal which issues are, in fact, considered to be the most urgent to address as perceived by the community of respondents. Q-methodology is a way to study the discourses via the population that by preferencing statements can expose the greatest sources of contention. This hierarchical ordering is an important advantage, especially for the purposes of environmental geographically located dilemmas, because simply too many of the components that define the problems (and solutions) in these issues are considered “most” important or critical. The typical “urgency-overload”, inevitable with R-method surveys, plays a role in the paralysis of effective change in policy and planning in environmental conservation issues [26]. Additionally, through this preferencing of statements, issues filtered through Q cannot only be ranked by their priority in the relative sense, but also by the intensity or strength of contention or consensus, i.e. how “hot” the issue is perceived to be. 4.2. Applying Q in the study of coral reef environmental crisis Q-methodology is made up of three basic elements: 1) the instrument itself, which consists of the statements that will be sorted, also called the concourse or q-sample, and the q-sort structure or matrix in which the concourse is distributed; 2) the population or the p-seteethose who will be sorting the statements as respondents, which is a selected community of individuals (vs random sampling) who contain some subjectivity about the issue; and 3), the analysis, which consists of a statistical analysis of the data into factors and the interpretation of the results from those factors, which represent the core perspectives or attitudes and also result in the ranking of the concourse statements that can be used to indicate levels of consensus. Among the most comprehensive primers for Q-methodology are McKeown and Thomas [158], Brown [31], Donner [156], Eden [32] and Addams and Proops [159]. Q-methodology is therefore a means by which subjectivities can be explored from an enormous variety of angles, thereby making it useful to management efforts. It provides a flexible but systematic and standardized method of enquiry into a debated topic that is connected to deep-seeded beliefs and perspectives [31,158]. Although still in its infancy in potential applications in geographic enquiries, this method is useful to explore constructivist accounts of social and natural realities in environmental dilemmas and to deconstruct the attitudes embedded in the debates and discourses [32,37,156,159]. By sorting out the hierarchy of issues that are all discussed as “most important”, “most urgent”, “most destructive”, etc., through preferencing, issues can be ranked by their priority and by levels of consensus. In this research, Q-methodology was employed to answer the following questions that can inform the reef conservation crisis: 1) What are the core foundational perspectives or viewpoints from which coral reef science and conservation debates emerge? 2) What are considered the most important issues among scientists and reef professionals? 3) How can these issues be organized in terms of both consensus and importance?

604

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

Table 1 Q-sort structure: 43 statements. Scale of agreement

5

4

3

2

1

0

þ1

þ2

þ3

þ4

þ5

No. of statements

1

2

4

5

6

7

6

5

4

2

1

The layout of the matrix is described above. The negative values in the “scale of agreement row” denote little agreement with the concourse statement, while the positive values denote relative agreement. Centered positions (1/0/þ1) indicate little agreement a or even apathy towards the statements. The “number of statements” row denotes the number of slots available in which to organize statements that are associated with the particular agreement value, forming an inverted pyramid in which to organize and prioritize statements, and by its construct, also normalizing the data.

4.3. The Q-sort structure The Q-sort concourse focused on management issues in coral reef science and conservation and contained 43 statements. The sort was conducted by the respondents electronically using Flash Q4 and was housed on a server at Florida State University. Respondents could link to the survey from their invitation and complete the sort at their leisure. The factor analysis was applied to the data using the open source statistical package “R”. The sort matrix had a normal distribution, which was useful to allow for a small number of extremes so that respondents would be forced to carefully consider their strongest notions. Respondents were asked to sort levels of agreement and provided an explanation that the labels were relative, and not absolute (least agree/5 to most agree/þ5). Table 1 describes the Q-sort matrix applied in this research. This sufficiently restricted scheme forced a more careful sorting and preferencing of “pet ideas” or favorite issues by permitting only one extreme and was done with the intention of more definitively revealing the deeper or stronger beliefs in the sampled community, but also allowed for enough mediated commitment (1 to þ1 range). 4.4. The concourse 4.4.1. Q-samples and scientific truth-claims Statements that are intended for Q-methodology require subjectivity, which is not typically considered to be a component of scientific “fact”. Indeed, the statements in this concourse are based on factual scientific findings, however they are applicable for use in Q-Methodology because, by default, contain opinions, subjectively-filtered expressions of facts. Despite the intent of pure objectivity, scientific truths about the environment are deeply and emotionally connected to the community that creates and debates them [35,147], as explained in section 2. As environmental claims are made, “facts” are presented in an effort to support or discredit interpretations around which predictions and continuing researches are structured. To be useful to environmental policy, these science-based efforts are subsequently contextualized within economic, environmental, institutional and socio-political arenas, constructing factual, yet also competing, scientific discourses of coral reef environmental conservation [44,110,159,160]. The power of Q in this research is in its ability to deconstruct assumptions into the core beliefs, viewpoints or attitudes, which are differently internalized and expressed in the epistemic network that shares a declared common goal of reef conservation [30,146,161,162]. The concourse statements in this research are grounded in empirically-derived positivist fact, however, the statements contain a enormous variety of meanings that are filtered through distinct viewpoints about how to accommodate

4

Flash Q homepage: http://www.hackert.biz/flashq/home/

those facts in the human-environment system. It is the subjective nature of environmental truth-claims inherent in this scientific process, and the misappropriation of uncertainty regarding consequences that has proven most difficult to approach in environmental problems deemed in crisis. Distilling the social conditions that dictate the directions of scientific debates has been difficult to achieve under the conventions of scientific protocol [24,35,103,147], making Q-Methodology especially suited for potential progress in navigating the coral reef environmental crisis. 4.4.2. Concourse sources Statements were derived from what are considered key publications, conversations in the literature, conferences, and other publicly accessible sources. Concourse statements are a derivation of contentions from peer-reviewed journal articles that centered around environmental and social issues regarding reef science and conservation. Articles from the last 15e20 years found in peerreviewed journals including Nature, Science, Coral Reefs, Bulletin of Marine Science, Ocean & Coastal Management, Conservation Biology, Marine Policy, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Atoll Research Bulletin, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Ecological Economics, and other similar publications that contain issues of reef conservation science served as the main source for extracting the most current issues in a historical grounding [e.g. 10, 66, 67, 69]. Statement choices were also influenced through attendance at the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium (Reefs for the Future), one of the most popular conferences for coral reef scientists and park and policy professionals, held in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida in July of 2008. Although there is a tendency against making extreme statements in Q, which implies using words such as “most”, “least”, “biggest”, “inevitable”, this language was preserved (when applicable) in the concourse to reflect the tone in which these ideas are framed. Finally, none of the statements were directly quoted from any sources given that in a small network, they can often be easily associated with particular individuals or research groups, thus potentially compromising participant anonymity. 4.4.3. Concourse sampling The concourse creation is the most important step for the researcher [32], who should have a solid understanding of the issue being sampled to ensure better acceptance within the desired community. The Q-sort focused in general on the expression of scientific truth-claims regarding environmental decline of coral reefs as they are discussed within the coral reef research and conservation network. Concourse statements were composed by a semi-structured approach [158] of which the topics were chosen based on reviewing the literature published on reefs over the last several decades, mainly by tracing the origins of concepts and issues discussed in recent articles (see 3.4.2.) The overarching issues of interest in this research were those that are directly related to contemporary ideas of coral reef health, and causes and mitigation of the reef crisis. Accounting blame for the decline seen in reefs and disentangling the complexities of environmental feedback systems on all scales dominates reef research endeavors today but revolves most generally around uncertainties regarding 1) the impacts of global climate change, 2) the role of humans, and 3) geographic location and scale issues. These three main topics are framed in a variety of ways in expositions such as peer-reviewed articles or popular media, and are generally firmly expressed as absolute, yet also strongly polarizing and divisive because of their implications. These viewpoints also consequently serve as the primary filters through which scientific evidence and factual details are subjectively processed and debated.

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

Statements were thus composed around these main three topics: global change, human interaction, and geography, concentrating on statements that exemplify how these issues are framed and debated within the epistemic community of coral reef researchers. In all, forty-three statements were appropriate to cover the three basic conceptual viewpoints from current discourses. The statements mirrored the prevailing messages in the discourses of reef decline and mitigation and included issues of scale, governance models, and projections. Throughout the preliminary research on defining this q-sample, the one common perspective from the sampled community revealed that scientists dealing with environmental issues in reef regions mostly attribute causation to consequences of human proximity to this ecosystem, for example, increasing coastal populations and irresponsible resource use [96,129]. This attitude was pervasive throughout the sampling and was therefore not “tested” as an issue of contention or unresolved debate, but rather in this work attempted to reveal how this Malthusian perspective emerged within the core attitudes. Statements considered the degree of contention regarding causation of the causes and effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) in oceans that was reflected in the public media’s treatment of the issue [13,123,127]. 4.4.4. The respondents e the P-set Q-Methodology requires few respondents, however requires that respondents be carefully chosen. In fact, it is suggested by primers that the number of individuals be less than half of the number of statements in the concourse. The reasoning for this is that it is not the respondents, the individuals, who are the measure but rather the statements they are organizing that are under scrutiny. This is the reason behind the importance of ensuring that one’s statements contain the possible attitudes one is seeking to organize. The respondents are simply “operants” or as a collection, are the tool or mechanism through which these attitudes are organized. The first consideration is that all individuals should contain some opinion or subjectivity about the issue that is being treated with Q. Ideally, the concourse is directly developed from preliminary interviews with potential respondents, however in issues that pertain to environment and science, publications and other sources described in Section 4.4.2 are apt and even more appropriate in terms of widely disseminated public discourses. Respondents were recruited first on the basis of their professional engagement with the discipline of coral reef science and conservation. Most sorters hold at least one graduate degree or have specialized experience in a relevant scientific discipline and apply their research mainly to understanding some aspect of the coral reef ecosystem or its integration into management. To reach the most diverse and connected nodes in the reef conservation network, respondents were preferred if they had multiple affiliations with reef-related organizations, reputable universities or research institutions, and were active in professional associations. Several authors of the variety of journal articles from which many of the statements were derived were among the participants. The collection of respondents comprises a wide-range of disciplines that are relevant to the study of coral reefs and included geologists, biologists, chemists, ecologists, social scientists, and management officials. Respondents were also not restricted by geography per se, as they were contacted via email and thereby limited only by their ability to connect to the web. The second criteria for choosing the respondents was to loosely reflect the relative emphasis of sub-disciplines within the epistemic community. When perusing articles on reef science, it becomes obvious that most of those people studying reefs logically have a strong background, if not specialization, in some facet of physical

605

or biological science, while comparatively few concentrate on social scientific aspects, such as socio-cultural uses of reef resources. To reflect this occupational demographic within the network, a greater number of scientists whose research is considered within the “hard sciences” make up the p-set, than those who consider their work social science. Respondents also include individuals who, though having a background or holding a graduate degree in a hard science field, have moved into more public roles, serving as liaisons between the science and various governmental or legislative units, or are among the science “celebrities” whose work on reef decline is commonly cited or referred to in the popular press, and whose opinion is thereby broadcast far beyond the epistemic network of their peers. The range of professional capacities among respondents included post-docs, young faculty, mature faculty, members of research consortiums, retired/emeritus faculty, MPA officials, and experienced research assistants. Those whose work is focused solely on capital gain, for example those who have some vested interests in reef tourism or work for consulting firms, were excluded as were scientists whose main role is fund-raising, to steer clear of any obvious sources of public-relations related bias. In total, about 240 reef professionals were contacted, introduced to the research, and asked about their willingness to participate in the Q study. From those, follow-up invitations more personally addressed and which included the URL links and access codes to the surveys were sent to 87 people, from which 31 completed the Q-sorts within the requested date. 5. Results & discussion 5.1. Attitudes and core beliefs: the factors Because of the loosely structured sampling method to devise the concourse, determining the number of clear factors became an iterative process of interpretation and re-examination of factor loadings. To begin, 2,3,4,5, and 6 factors were calculated to determine how many factors best include most respondents, judging by factor loadings. Factor loadings of roughly 0.35 were considered significant to assign to a factor. Four factors best isolated and characterized the deeper perspective in the management arena with respect to the concourse. The defining characteristics of each factor are explained in terms of its mathematically-weighted hierarchy of statements following each table. Tables 2e5 below show the factor ranks for those statements ranking from þ3 to þ5 and 3 to 5, which in this research is considered to be a high level of preferencing or intensity, and from which the scores are interpreted to characterize main beliefs or viewpoints. The remaining factor rankings (2 to þ2) for all statements can be found in Table 6. Those that fall between 1 and þ1 are closer to neutral and are therefore not “intensely” felt among respondents, carrying only minor importance in their factor characteristics. In most general terms, factors represent the viewpoint of a “common individual” that is distilled from the variety and diversity of Q-sorts. These factor characteristics are developed from a variety of combinations of statement content and how they rank. That statements do not reflect a single thought or idea is, in fact, a necessary feature of the concourse [159]; therefore particular attitudes are reflected not from a single statement, but usually from a combination of statements that hook into specific discursive elements. Each of the four factors therefore describe common and deepseated attitudes that are pervasive in the epistemic community. Descriptions below are limited to the most obvious and basic attitudes that are expressed by the factor rankings to provide an overview of how to interpret factor ranks (aka factor scores) and arrive at the attitudes and beliefs, and gauge consensus.

606

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

Table 2 Community and locally-centered humanists (Factor 1).

Table 3 Scientific Idealists with Globally-based Perspective (Factor 2).

#

Statements

Rank

#

Statements

rank

33

Conservation efforts should focus on restoring or maintaining reef resilience rather than focus on reef restoration. Because of the difficulty in controlling and alleviating reef stressors (e.g. rising ocean temps), goals for managing reefs should be to regain the resilience of reefs in their current environment of stressors. For fishers in developing countries, fishing is not only a means of subsistence and survival, but also a way of life and cultural tradition that should be preserved. The social networks and relationships between the people in a reef fishing region are far more important than top-down regulations as a controlling factor in how well fishing regulations and limits are followed. There can be no set standard of MPA regulations, instead they must be individually assessed based on the use-regimes and cultural mores. MPAs are overall highly effective in preserving reefs. The growing pains inherent in becoming a developed country ultimately includes a reduced social valuation of local traditional customs and taboos regarding resource exploitation, which is what we see happening in many reef areas today. Remote reef areas that are still pristine or relatively undisturbed should be the primary conservation focus. Severely restricting or eliminating local artisanal and subsistence fishing efforts on coral reefs is the key to reef health and resilience. Commercial fishing operations (medium to large scale) generally follow the regulations on fishing methods and catch limits given the risk of fines, and therefore need little enforcement. Because of the increasing volume of long distance reef fishing and poaching, community management systems are ineffective management mechanisms. Government or NGO-established MPAs do a much better job of protecting reefs than customary or community management systems. MPAs should be established in places where the reefs are in the most pristine conditions, regardless of their proximity to users. There is no point in protecting an area using local measures if long distance effects are equally important in driving the ecosystem along a declining trajectory.

þ5

7

Regardless of which management system is employed, conservation of reefs must happen on local and regional geographic scales to achieve success. MPAs should be established in places where the reefs are in the most pristine conditions, regardless of their proximity to users. Remote reef areas that are still pristine or relatively undisturbed should be the primary conservation focus. MPA establishment should rest on the regional connectivity of reefs, regardless of their condition, as the primary variable if we are to establish an effective regional marine protected area network. Because all reefs share a core of common causes for their declines, reef conservation must happen globally with a standardized set of regulations to be successful. An effective reef MPA means greater coral growth (less dead/dying coral) and higher species diversity within its boundaries. Politicians are uneasy about introducing closed seasons or reducing limits of commercial fishing efforts near reef regions because of the strong lobbies representing these fishers. There is no point in protecting an area using local measures if long distance effects are equally important in driving the ecosystem along a declining trajectory. Corruption in any political form is the main obstacle to effective reef MPA establishment and regulation enforcement. Fish farming should be supported as a reef conservation solution. Commercial fishing operations (medium to large scale) generally follow the regulations on fishing methods and catch limits given the risk of fines, and therefore need little enforcement. The lack of scientific certainty about what constitutes a “normal” or healthy reef is the biggest problem in managing reefs. MPAs should be chosen to exist in places where reefs are in the poorest health. The condition of reefs has a direct relationship between its proximity to a developed country; healthier reefs are seen around developed countries while the most unhealthy and degraded reefs are typically proximal to developing countries.

þ5

24

12

31

39

5 34

41 4

10

32

19

38

3

þ4 38

þ4

41 20

þ3

8 þ3 27 þ3 þ3 30

3

3

3 35 3

36 10

3

2 15

4 23 4

þ4

þ4 þ3

þ3

þ3

þ3

3

3 3 3

4 4 5

5

As interpreting the factors is a textual analysis on statements’ core ideas, it is most important to determine mainly the strongest attitude or general belief that is inherent in the statements’ relative rankings. For this reason, it becomes necessary to first understand the general attitude that is embedded in how the factor-statements are organized (or ranked), given it is these core ideas around which the statements were constructed. The details within each statement only amount to different ways in which these core ideas are engaged as discursive elements to support or disclaim particular beliefs or attitudes. 5.1.1. Factor 1 The strong rankings of statements 12, 31 and 39 clearly show that this factor believes in the importance of the community and the positive role people can have in shaping effective management practices. The importance of locally-oriented solutions is made clear by the strong disagreement with statement 3, 19 and 38. An additional element of the core attitude that is revealed by the rankings in this factor indicates that achieving resilience of reefs in the current climate of degradation is of primary importance in the future of reef health (e.g. rankings of statements 33, 24). This factor also believes that top-down regulatory systems may not be as effective as locally-driven management efforts as shown by the rankings of statements 12, 31, 32, 19, 3; and that local regulation can (and does) work (statements 5, 12, 3). Specifics of place are also

a significant consideration in terms of cultural and use-regimes, and for this factor must be considered as a crucial element to not only producing effective management systems (statements 39, 34, 41, 38), but also countering environmental degradation as an inevitability of development (statements 34, 39, 4, 10, 32). All of these traits combined point to a group that is clearly community centered, highly respects and believes in the power of people, and is strongly committed to understanding geographic difference, and that local forces play a role in successful conservation. 5.1.2. Factor 2 This factor attitude has a regional or local perspective as well, acknowledging that it is in local areas that management must happen and is therefore important (statement 7, 3). But considering the ranking of statements 8, 20, 15 and 25 (as well as 39 and 40, shown in Table 6), this factor sees local and regional systems only in terms of a supporting system for top-down regulatory devices. This factor is also defined by a distinct belief or faith in scientific researches (statements 2, 27) and with that, the perspective of reef management is embraced from an ecosystem geographic view of the reef (versus a human-oriented view), with social factors or human influences more a part of a feedback system rather than a consideration in decision-making (statements 38, 41, 27, 20). Looking at the relative rankings of statements 15, 38, 20 and 41, this factor supports conserving more pristine and idyllic reef environments rather than those already in severe decline. This factor also shows disdain for the politicized developed-country/capitalistoriented strategies that are associated with reef conservation

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614 Table 4 Skeptical and utilitarian pragmatists (Factor 3).

607

Table 5 Politically-oriented positivists (Factor 4).

#

Statements

rank

#

Statements

rank

6

It is impossible to standardize the measure of what constitutes a healthy reef because of all the local variations in environmental stressors and localized ecological responses. The lack of scientific certainty about what constitutes a “normal” or healthy reef is the biggest problem in managing reefs. There is no point in protecting an area using local measures if long distance effects are equally important in driving the ecosystem along a declining trajectory. Emphasizing purely ecological foundations in ecosystem restoration ignores the reasons for what drove environmental factors to a degradative state to begin with. Because global factors causing a decline in reef health are impossible to regulate, local or regional stressors of reef decline should be the focus for management and conservation efforts. There can be no set standard of MPA regulations, instead they must be individually assessed based on the use-regimes and cultural mores. Conservation efforts should focus on restoring or maintaining reef resilience rather than focus on reef restoration. Enforcement of use-regulations is the number one obstacle to effective MPAs. Government or NGO-established MPAs do a much better job of protecting reefs than customary or community management systems. It is only through strong enforcement measures such as severe penalties and a visible, active force, that reef areas can be protected and maintained. MPAs should be chosen to exist in places where reefs are in the poorest health. Banning or intensively restricting any kind of fishing near reefs is the most concrete path to reef recovery. MPAs are overall highly effective in preserving reefs. Management goals of reefs should be to return them as close as possible to the pristine conditions of decades ago.

þ5

9

þ5

þ4

35

þ4

33

It is only through strong enforcement measures such as severe penalties and a visible, active force, that reef areas can be protected and maintained. Corruption in any political form is the main obstacle to effective reef MPA establishment and regulation enforcement. Conservation efforts should focus on restoring or maintaining reef resilience rather than focus on reef restoration. Government or NGO-established MPAs do a much better job of protecting reefs than customary or community management systems. Politicians are uneasy about introducing closed seasons or reducing limits of commercial fishing efforts near reef regions because of the strong lobbies representing these fishers. It is impossible to standardize the measure of what constitutes a healthy reef because of all the local variations in environmental stressors and localized ecological responses. There is no point in protecting an area using local measures if long distance effects are equally important in driving the ecosystem along a declining trajectory. Allowing continued community-controlled subsistence use of reefs, regardless of formalized management structures, would ease poaching and illegal practices and strengthen community-enforcement. Because all reefs share a core of common causes for their declines, reef conservation must happen globally with a standardized set of regulations to be successful. Severely restricting or eliminating local artisanal and subsistence fishing efforts on coral reefs is the key to reef health and resilience. The lack of scientific certainty about what constitutes a “normal” or healthy reef is the biggest problem in managing reefs. Banning or intensively restricting any kind of fishing near reefs is the most concrete path to reef recovery. Conservation focus should be on nearshore or coastal reefs. MPA establishment should rest on the regional connectivity of reefs, regardless of their condition, as the primary variable if we are to establish an effective regional marine protected area network.

2 3

26

1

39

33 16 19

9

15 11 5 21

19 þ3 30 þ3 6 þ3 3 þ3 3

40

3 8 3 4 3 4

2

4 5

11

efforts in these regions (statements 30, 36, 10 and 23). In essence, this factor clearly believes strongly in scientific research that separates human-dimensions as a circumstance to contend with. Although this factor acknowledges that local or regional human elements matter in the outcome, they prefer to see it only as part of a non-human equation as devised by a universalized ideal of the science of reefs and reef management. 5.1.3. Factor 3 This factor exemplifies the disenchantment and skepticisms that can often come with the difficulties in management of complex ecosystems and demonstrates the doubt of general perspectives of scientific findings, as seen by rankings of statements 6 and 39 (question abilities to standardize or universalize scientific findings), 2 (little consensus on what defines a “healthy” reef), 26 (ignoring factors outside of those derived purely ecologically and empirically). This factor also seems cynical about the efficacy of MPAs as a useful tool under conditions of standardized utility and as an penultimate solution (statements 6, 3, 39, 5, 16, 19, 9, 21). This factor seems well aware of the consideration and complications of geographical differences (statements 3, 9, 26, 6), and feels that local and community participation is a crucial part of the answer (statements 1, 39). This factor also does not support the idea that is commonly stated as a failure of management efforts, namely the lack of enforcement (statements 16, 11, 9) and when combined with statements 6, 3, 5, 33, 19 and 21 seems overall somewhat pessimistic about some of the more “conventional” ideologies of MPAs. Collectively, this factor represents a level of skepticism but yet also pragmatism and values the simple utilitarian and logical prospects of conservation, which include acknowledging regional and geographic difference and the questions that perturb a simplistic universalization of environmental science.

28 20

þ4 þ4 þ3

þ3

þ3

þ3

3

3

3

3 4 4 5

5.1.4. Factor 4 This factor clearly exemplifies a support of jurisdictional powers and belief in political environments and structures that have been installed in reef conservation science (statements 35, 19, 30), with a strong perception of enforcement as the primary determinant in chances for reef conservation (statements 9, 19, and in the Table 6, see F4 rankings for statement 10, 16). This factor implies a positivist position in that locally-oriented efforts do not have any effective or concrete decision-making power in the scheme of MPA development and regulation, and that community management is generally ineffective. This group prefers to approach management in terms of local regulatory mechanisms of enforcement as they are rooted in global standards and ideologies indicative of developed countries’ type of enforcement standards (statements 40, 19, 8, 3 and see also factor 4 rankings for statements 1 and 14 in Table 6). This factor, like factor 2, also has a strong belief in how science frames the conditions of reefs and management goals (statements 2, 20, 6, 33), but that fishing pressures comprise a negligible concern in overall reef health and conservation (statements 4, 11). 5.2. Consensus Consensus is a measurement defined first by the gap-values, which are the difference between the most extreme rankings among the factors. The ranking-values themselves among the factors define the intensity (or importance or priority) between how each factor individually evaluates the opinions stated in the particular statements. Despite the highly differing attitudes and

608

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

Table 6 Consensus of statements ordered by factor rankings, and the relative intensity of agreement or disagreement (defined by the “Gap” between factor rankings) indicating a reflection of its level of importance among respondents. High “gap” values indicated high levels of contention, while the factor rankings themselves show how “intense” or how important the particular issues represented by the statements are. Low factor scores (between 2 and 2) imply statements of lesser importance than gaps generated by high factor values (3 to 5 and þ3 to þ5)). #

Statement

F1

F2

F3

F4

Gap

3

There is no point in protecting an area using local measures if long distance effects are equally important in driving the ecosystem along a declining trajectory. The lack of scientific certainty about what constitutes a “normal” or healthy reef is the biggest problem in managing reefs. It is only through strong enforcement measures such as severe penalties and a visible, active force, that reef areas can be protected and maintained. MPA establishment should rest on the regional connectivity of reefs, regardless of their condition, as the primary variable if we are to establish an effective regional marine protected area network. MPAs should be established in places where the reefs are in the most pristine conditions, regardless of their proximity to users. MPAs are overall highly effective in preserving reefs. Government or NGO-established MPAs do a much better job of protecting reefs than customary or community management systems. Management goals of reefs should be to return them as close as possible to the pristine conditions of decades ago. Conservation efforts should focus on restoring or maintaining reef resilience rather than focus on reef restoration. Corruption in any political form is the main obstacle to effective reef MPA establishment and regulation enforcement. Remote reef areas that are still pristine or relatively undisturbed should be the primary conservation focus. It is impossible to standardize the measure of what constitutes a healthy reef because of all the local variations in environmental stressors and localized ecological responses. Because all reefs share a core of common causes for their declines, reef conservation must happen globally with a standardized set of regulations to be successful. Because global factors causing a decline in reef health are impossible to regulate, local or regional stressors of reef decline should be the focus for management and conservation efforts. For fishers in developing countries, fishing is not only a means of subsistence and survival, but also a way of life and cultural tradition that should be preserved. Enforcement of use-regulations is the number one obstacle to effective MPAs. The condition of reefs has a direct relationship between its proximity to a developed country; healthier reefs are seen around developed countries while the most unhealthy and degraded reefs are typically proximal to developing countries. Because of the difficulty in controlling and alleviating reef stressors (e.g. rising ocean temps), goals for managing reefs should be to regain the resilience of reefs in their current environment of stressors. Conservation focus should be on nearshore or coastal reefs. Fish farming should be supported as a reef conservation solution. Allowing continued community-controlled subsistence use of reefs, regardless of formalized management structures, would ease poaching and illegal practices and strengthen community-enforcement. Regardless of which management system is employed, conservation of reefs must happen on local and regional geographic scales to achieve success. Commercial fishing operations (medium to large scale) generally follow the regulations on fishing methods and catch limits given the risk of fines, and therefore need little enforcement. Banning or intensively restricting any kind of fishing near reefs is the most concrete path to reef recovery. MPAs should be chosen to exist in places where reefs are in the poorest health. An effective reef MPA means greater coral growth (fewer dead/dying coral) and higher species diversity within its boundaries. Because of the increasing volume of long distance reef fishing and poaching, community management systems are ineffective management mechanisms. The growing pains inherent in becoming a developed country ultimately includes a reduced social valuation of local traditional customs and taboos regarding resource exploitation, which is what we see happening in many reef areas today. There can be no set standard of MPA regulations, instead they must be individually assessed based on the use-regimes and cultural mores. Describing a reef as healthy is contingent on the relative condition of that reef compared to neighboring reefs. Although there is some degree of fluctuation, fisheries stocks assessments and models are generally accurate. Measurable changes on reefs usually occur unevenly over a relatively small geographic area (square meters or kilometers). Because of this highly localized variability, a regional standard of regulations must be applied to reef areas if we are to protect them. Enforcement of acceptable recreational and tourist activities on reefs is more important than regulating artisanal fishing. Over-exploitation and habitat loss or fragmentation disrupt natural levels of reef self-recruitment and connectivity, and so to halt the destruction of reefs requires a global or regional management system. Emphasizing purely ecological foundations in ecosystem restoration ignores the reasons for what drove environmental factors to a degradative state to begin with. An MPA in reef regions can be rated successful only when fish and herbivore populations remain stable or increase. Politicians are uneasy about introducing closed seasons or reducing limits of commercial fishing efforts near reef regions because of the strong lobbies representing these fishers. The social networks and relationships between the people in a reef fishing region are far more important than top-down regulations as a controlling factor in how well fishing regulations and limits are followed. There are too few modern examples of functioning or “successful” customary management practices to serve as a viable management strategy for reef conservation in the future. In developed countries (e.g the U.S., Australia), reef fishing is generally more of a recreation or a sport rather than a survival and subsistence mechanism, and therefore fishing regulations are more readily accepted and generally followed. Although customary management is not designed for conservation, it often results in long-term, self-regulating effective resource stewardship. Severely restricting or eliminating local artisanal and subsistence fishing efforts on coral reefs is the key to reef health and resilience. MPAs should be established where reefs are most important for local and community livelihoods.

5

3

þ4

þ3

9

2 2

4 þ2

þ4 3

3 þ5

8 8

0

þ3

2

5

8

4 þ3 4

þ4 1 0

þ1 4 3

þ2 0 þ3

8 7 7

1 þ5 þ1 3 1

þ1 2 3 þ4 1

5 þ3 1 þ2 þ5

þ2 þ4 þ4 þ1 þ3

7 7 7 7 6

2

þ3

1

3

6

þ2

þ2

þ3

2

5

þ4

þ1

þ1

1

5

þ1 1

1 5

3 2

þ2 0

5 5

þ4

þ2

þ2

1

5

þ1 1 þ2

1 3 2

0 þ2 0

4 þ2 3

5 5 5

þ1

þ5

þ2

þ1

4

3

3

þ1

2

4

0 0 0 3

0 4 þ3 0

4 3 1 þ1

4 2 0 þ1

4 4 4 4

þ3

0

0

1

4

þ3

1

þ3

þ1

4

2 1 0

þ1 2 þ1

þ2 2 0

1 þ1 2

4 3 3

þ1 þ1

2 þ2

2 1

2 0

3 3

þ2

0

þ3

0

3

0 þ2

þ2 þ3

1 0

1 þ3

3 3

þ3

þ1

0

0

3

2

1

0

1

2

þ1

0

1

þ1

2

þ2

0

þ1

þ2

2

3 0

2 þ1

2 þ1

3 0

1 1

2 9 20 38 5 19 21 33 35 41 6 8 1 12 16 23 24 28 36 40 7 10 11 15 27 32 34 39 42 13 14

17 25 26 29 30 31 18 22 37 4 43

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

viewpoints represented by the factors, the factor rankings for each statement can, nevertheless characterize and rank agreement and priority. Analyzing the gap-values must therefore take both the gap-value and the ranking-values themselves into account. Smaller values represent more neutrality, indifference or unimportance (relative to the other issues), and thus de-emphasize the importance/urgency of the issue. Statement 11, for example, shows Factors 1 and 2 giving the concept of banning fishing a 0 ranking, but Factors 3 and 4 both vehemently disagree with the statement at a 4. Therefore agreement is fairly high (since the neutral values imply little importance or indifference), and a high consensus despite a mid-range gap-value. However, because the matrix scale is relative, it does not mean that Factors 1 and 2 don’t care, rather simply that they do not feel strongly about the statement compared to the other statements. Statement 22, on the other hand, is more straight forward although all Factors assigned a fairly neutral ranking to the issue, resulting in a low gap-value (high consensus) and a low rank of importance. Therefore, generating Fig. 2, which summarizes the results for all statements, must be done with this methodical consideration. Looking at the factor ranking numbers, for example, the numerical difference between the highest and lowest ranks (e.g. statement 3 has a gap of 9 because it’s ranked is þ4 by Factor 3 and lowest as a 5 by Factor 1) represents both consensus with high gap numbers representing strong contention among the factors, while the rank-values represent intensity or priority each factor contains regarding that particular statement. The relative intensities of the rankings themselves therefore also provide some insight of the how strongly the particular issue expressed in the statement is felt by the community of respondents. The factor rankings also show that the factors are generally split, in that two (factors 1 and 2) disagree, and two (factors 3 and 4) agree with this concept, however because conflict negotiation requires dealing with the most extreme contention, this “split” only states

609

that there seems to be high contention regarding this topic, which the gap-value has already indicated. The intensity or priority is high because of the high ranking-values, but the agreement level is generally split. For statement 2, the gap-value is also high, which implies that there is extreme contention of this statement among the factors. However, Factors 1, 2 and 4 disagree with the statement (that scientific uncertainty provides a significant obstacle to successful management efforts) factor 3, the skeptics, vehemently agree with the statement (that scientific certainty is a significant problem to generating effective management systems). In this case, given three factors agree, the agreement level is pushed towards consensus, but the dissenting factor cannot be ignored, and in fact, because of the high rank of dissent, has a significant pull (see Fig. 2). Conversely, statement 4 shows that there is general agreement about the role of artisenal fishing, and medium priority is exemplified by the factor ranking-values hovering at 2 and 3 for all factors; while statement 43 shows that there is general agreement, but also relative apathy about the premise of MPA establishment and community livelihoods among all factors given their ranks of 0 and þ1. This interpretive analysis can be carried out for all statements once factors and their rankings are determined, and provides some significant insight as to how management efforts will be perceived and judged as they are filtered through the epistemic community that generates the discourses. However, it must be kept in mind that these statements must be seen in relative terms, must be considered on the basis of extremes (given conflict is based on the most extreme differences within attitudes). Table 6 provides a complete list of gaps and factor rankings for each statement by gap-values. Fig. 2 in the conclusions provides an overview of the relationship between priority (represented by the factor rankings) and levels of consensus (represented by the gaps) of the general concepts embedded in the statements.

Fig. 2. This table describes the relative positions of issues that define the debates in coral reef management. The x-axis explains the level of agreement or consensus about a given issue while the y-axis describes the level of importance or intensity as described by the factor ranks.

610

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

6. Conclusions 6.1. Factors and attitudes Historically, the reef crisis has emerged out of observations made of these systems since the mid to late 1700s. Early scientific endeavors on reef systems grew from biological and geological interests into social and professional disciplines that inevitably require social scientific interpretations in a context of population growth and development. The shifting baseline of decline in reef ecosystems has inevitably incorporated a strong human element in the continuing reef degradation reported by scientists In an increasingly commercialized environment and managers’ acute awareness of potential ramifications of environmental decisions, a wide variety of political and financial interests have taken hold within environmental conservation endeavors that have served to at least partially obscure progress and valid knowledge already produced by the scientific and management community. To retain (and regain) the power of scientific results that are generally accepted as truth, but which are often distorted or reinterpreted as needed to support opposing views, requires an explicit and logic-based system of how scientific conclusions can be judged. By applying Q-methodology to subjective scientific statements, it becomes possible to extricate the value-judgements (expressed as factors) from truth-claims that are generally presumed value-free, “neutral” facts and gain insight in how facts are viewed within the epistemic community.

Evaluating how reef professionals feel about their own work, and from what basic viewpoints their conclusions are structured informs how meanings are shared and expressed (or not), however requires a method that considers subjectivities. Despite their association with concepts such as bias and favor, subjectivities are simply attitudes or tendencies of beliefs that are contained by a particular community of individuals. Given the overwhelming reliance on scientific fact to guide environmental decisions, outlining subjectivities among the environmental conservation professionals can clarify the current standing of particular debated issues (e.g. the urgency expressed by the concerns over ocean acidification). The four main viewpoints that are pervasive as core attitudes within the epistemic community of reef conservation professionals are summarized in Table 7 (see also Section 4.1). Distilling the subjective features of those who comprise the social network allows some anticipation on what basis practical and logistical contentions will be made and may offer an effective tool in negotiations and dispute resolution in the current crisis-context of continuing environmental declines, increasingly unsustainable resource extraction and rampant development and over-population of coastal communities. 6.2. Consensus, contention and priorities This work engaged Q-methodology to find an alternative way to prioritize environmental issues that equally claim legitimate scientific evidence as foundations for preferential support. Deconstructing discursive scientific environmental debates through preferencing of

Table 7 Characteristics defined by the factors and express the general subjective properties that are embedded in the discourse. Viewpoints for each factor were stratified into perspectives and preferences on management models, geographic perspectives (or “starting point”) and the role or utility of scientific findings. These can be useful to navigate matters of contention and consensus by explicitly outlining the basic beliefs or viewpoints through which people in the epistemic community will filter information. Although a particular tendency may run in all of the factors, the manner in which the statements are preferenced define the factor’s dominant characteristics. F1: Community centered humanists

F2: Scientific idealists

F3: Skeptic utilitarianists

F4: Political reformists

Management model

 locally based: supports “bottom-up” system of management that is community driven and community enforced.  suspicious of commercial motivations and capitalist development strategies destroying effective community governance.

 effective measures must be individually assessed in terms of the whole and which includes human factors which contribute a functional mechanism.  control the whole through the sum of its parts. supports bottom-up management but only as it can be applied within an accepted standard of global affiliation.

 top-down systems are the concrete path to effective conservation.  corruption and political coercions are a main obstacles to successful applications of reef conservation efforts.  strict enforcement of regulations as the primary requisite for successful reef management.

Geographic perspective

 locally-centered viewpoint in that the community is an autonomous unit.  the spaces beyond the community respond to local successes, but successful management of home-space is of primary importance.

 local or community management as a operative tool: supports local and community management insofar as it is required to provide the necessary infrastructure to support a globally-based strategy of conservation.  Pristine areas should be the focus of conservation regardless of human proximities or local use-regimes.  Distanced-Bird’s eye view of the world. Global vision ideal as a collection of regions made of local systems which all represent functional units to support global efforts of reef conservation.

 Gaian in its manner of separating the local perspectives of reef decline and management but with an acknowledgment that these fall short of representing the whole. Local in action, global in scope.

Role of scientific contributions

 Useful information to apply to improve the community environment.  reef resilience as the goal.  acceptance of global factors that exacerbate local declines, but stronger confidence in socially contextualized interpretations of the problem of reef decline and solutions.

 viewed as a collection of socio-political units that must engage and connect through political means to achieve conservation.  Local matters but mostly in terms of the realities that must be included as part of the political calculus to reach conservation goals in the political network.  directive that provides clarity and options about management choices. Science is a non-humanized report that provides advice.  complete confidence in the science; seen as a tool to apply but that doesn’t carry political weight.  strong faith in the processes of international relations and environmental conventions.

 high degree of absolute agreement with purely scientific claims regarding the reef ecosystem that can be generally applied as a starting point in policy and regulation development.  sees human fallibility as the problem in achieving predicted results.

 extremely skeptical about the certainty of scientific claims; mistrust in general claims about predictions of reef health or achieving a standardization.  confidence in the power of local conditions as they relate to generalizations and pessimistic about society as a whole.

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

findings and discourse topics additionally provides clarity about which topics fuel debate and contention and which topics have been settled as accepted ontologies and stepping stones on which to negotiate environmental action. Seeking an agreed hierarchy of issues among those attempting to solve a complex environmental problem has slowed reef conservation efforts and finding consensus can offer a way forward on the basis of least resistance and can point to issues that can be relatively easily approached. Conversely, finding contention may offer a guide into what issues require greater attention in the scientific arena as research before being effectively applied in policy efforts (see Fig. 2). Statements contain particular elements such as where MPAs should be established, their regulatory structures and who controls them, fishing issues which are pervasive in most all MPA discussions, and other core ideas. Statements can be consolidated to generate some central ideas, which can then be plotted in accordance with how they are ranked and the gap-value (as in Fig. 2). The position of the central ideas depends on the values and rankings and is not determined by a mathematical formula nor should be considered static. However, consolidating core or central ideas and relating them to one another on this scaling can inform conflict resolution efforts and determine which topics would receive greater attention establishing policy or research priorities. The following is the list of some core ideas or general discourse topics that are part of the subtext in the concourse, and which are plotted in Fig. 2:  The influence of global feedback systems on the success of reef management (3, 20, 6, 1, 24). All of these statements have a gapvalues of 5 or more, and also contain the strongest ranking-values. Therefore there is high disagreement among the factors regarding the importance of global influences on policy and management.  Top-down MPA systems are a successful strategy. (9, 19, 8, 7, 37, 18, 39, 31). This statement-combination shows that there is confidence that community-managed systems are effective, and in fact more so than top-down related strategies, however there is also a clear trend that top-down strategies are necessary for some consistency. Gap-values are low to mid-range, from 2e7 for these statements, however in some cases, simply show a differing level of agreement. The ranking-values of the statements can be considered as overall “average”, with a few intense rankings. General agreement, for example, as in statement 7 (just in differing degrees) push the agreement level towards the right in the Fig. 2.  The relative importance and the relationship between debated issues in science, connectivity and resilience in MPA establishment. (20, 38, 33, 23, 24 15, 26, 13). This issue ranges widely in gap-values, as well as intensities and priorities given each statements; however overall, the gap-values lean towards conflicting viewpoints, and rankings are generally between 4 and 2, placing them within a mid-range importance.  Faith in the ability of the community to successfully regulate its reef resources. (35, 40, 7, 10, 31, 18, 37, 43, 30). In general, there is little contention regarding the ability or importance of communities to be involved in regulating their resources. Aside from the intense disagreement regarding the influence of corruptive politics, it is agreed that local-level involvement is important. The general mid to low-range rankings, however, relegate this issue to one of low to medium priority or importance. Agreement of conservation needing to happen locally is exemplified in statement 7. All factors agree, but to a varying amount of intensity, placing it high on the agreement scale and in mid-range of priority.  Delegation of power and strong enforcement. (8, 19, 35, 16, 17) The combination of these statements seems to imply that most are in general agreement that enforcement is an important part











611

of successful management, whether through effective community systems or from oversight regulatory systems. All of these statements, however, show a fairly low to medium gap-value and have low to medium ranking-values, implying that this issue may not be the first priority among all factors. MPAs should be established in areas of intense human uses or population densities. (38, 5, 41, 28, 40, 11, 15, 4, 43) Every factor disagrees that MPAs should be chosen in places where reefs are in poorest health, which is generally considered to be areas of high human use and traffic. Only Factor 1 is neutral about this as an important or decisive issue (15), so there is generally high agreement about this issue on those terms; however, the rankings for statement 43 and 4 also imply that reef MPAs should not necessarily be chosen on the basis of nearby human use-regimes and that clearly other variables should control their location. The intense disagreement between factors in statement 38, 41 and 28 also implies that some believe protecting remote reef areas is more important. Overall, the combination of these statements places this issue at a medium to high contention-level (given most factors seem to favor protecting remote areas), and one of great priority based on factor rankings. All factors, however, also admit that nearshore reefs, usually those used most often, are also important given proper enforcement structures. It is likely that disagreement regarding the efficacy of MPAs to begin with (5) influences this perspective among factors as well. Local community structures are of great importance in establishing successful MPAs and need support to work effectively. (11, 32, 17, 31, 22, 37, 4, 43) The gap-values for statements that contain this discourse are generally low, implying general agreement among factors, and there seems to be a lukewarm level of priority regarding this issue, given the ranking-values. This places the consensus level of this issue fairly high however its level of priority ranks relatively low. Severely restricting fishing will not lead to better conservation (12, 11, 34, 13, 4) Statements 12 and 4 indicate that restricting fishing in subsistence communities would not help conservation efforts, with all factors agreeingeone stronglyeeexcept for factor 4, which has ranked it an issue that is of little priority. This could be influenced in part given the skepticism regarding fisheries models (13), however is also not a priority related to other issues. This issue therefore has general agreement, however is not of utmost importance. Scientific uncertainty, its importance and influence ineffective MPA establishment. (2, 20, 6, 8, 13, 26, 29) Statement 2 has a high gap-value, although three of four factors agree that the uncertainty is not the biggest problem in reef management. The rankings in statement 6 and 13 also seem to underemphasize the issues that are currently a heated debate in scientific circles, implying that scientific uncertainty, though important (6) should not be the determining factor. Gap-values are generally low, and ranking-values overall indicate that negotiating scientific uncertainty is not a priority. Fishing lobbies and political interests, and proximal social networks can influence levels of fishing pressure and regulation. (17, 30, 31, 4). The rankings of these statements clearly show that most factors are in general agreement (with low gapvalues), and some believe these to be mid to high priority according to their ranking-values.

Fig. 2 represents a general guideline of the discursive elements that are approached in the statements, and is relative scheme. However, it is systematically derived and other relevant issues and details can be gleaned from the concourse and plotted in the same way.

612

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

Being able to apply a systematic method towards understanding the infinite opinions within subjectivities about basic beliefs and deep-seated priorities offers a legitimate, operant-defined method to disentangle and prioritize the vast collection of intertwined scientific and management concerns regarding reef ecosystem decline and recovery. Re-organizing environmental knowledges and debated issues provides informative guidance on how to better organize conservation missions, focus research, and structure expectations regarding management initiatives in an atmosphere of environmental crisis and urgency. Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the U.S. National Science Foundation for their support of this research through a Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant, BCS-0825623. Thanks also to Philip E. Steinberg for his thoughtful and useful comments in this manuscript, and to James B. Elsner, who provided valuable assistance with “R” statistical protocol and guidance in the interpretation of mathematical outcomes. References [1] Agardy T, Bridgewater P, Crosby MP, Day J, Dayton PK, Kenchington R, et al. Dangerous targets? unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquat Conserv Mar & Freshw Ecosyst 2003;13:353e67. [2] Bell JD, Ratner BD, Stobutzki I, Oli J. Addressing the coral reef crisis in developing countries. Ocean Coast Manag 2006;49:976e85. [3] Bellwood DR, Hughees TP, Folke C, Nyström M. Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 2004;429:827e33. [4] Pandolfi JM, Bradbury RH, Sala E, Hughes TP, Bjorndal KA, Cooke RG, et al. Global trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 2003;301:955e8. [5] Roberts CM, McClean CJ, Veron JEN, Hawkins JP, Allen GR, McAllister DE, et al. Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science 2002;295:1280e4. [6] Souter DW, Linden O. The health and future of coral reef systems. Ocean Coast Manag 2000;43:657e88. [7] Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, Halpern BS, et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 2006;314:787e90. [8] Birkeland C, editor. Life and death of coral reefs. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1997. [9] Briggs SV. Integrating policy and science in natural resources: why so difficult? Ecol Manag Restor 2006;7:37e9. [10] Ginsburg [Compiler] RN. Proceedings of the Colloquium on global aspects of coral reefs: health, Hazards and history 1993. Rosenstiel School of marine and Atmospheric science. University of Miami; 1994. [11] Ginsburg R.N. Professor, University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Marine Geology and Geophysics. pers. comm; 2009. [12] Zane B. Board Member, Board of Directors, Montego Bay Marine Park, Montego Bay, Jamaica. pers. comm., October 2009. [13] McWilliams JP, Coté IM, Gill JA, Sutherland WJ, Watkinson AR. Accelerating impacts of temperature-Induced coral bleaching in the Caribbean. Ecology 2005;86(8):2055e60. [14] Mumby PJ, Steneck RS. Coral reef management and conservation in light of rapidly evolving ecological paradigms. Trends Ecol Evol 2008;23(10):255e63. [15] Spalding MD, Ravilious C, Green EP. World Atlas of coral reefs. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2001. p. 424. [16] Wilkinson C. Status of coral reefs of the world: 2008. Townsville, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre; 2008. p. 296. [17] Campbell LM. Local conservation practice and global discourse: a political ecology of sea turtle conservation. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2007;97:313e34. [18] Nichols K. Coming to terms with "Integrated Coastal Management": problems of meaning and method in a new arena of resource regulation. Prof Geogr 1999;51(3):388e99. [19] Dean C. The preservation predicament. New York Times [Environment]; January 29, 2008. [20] McGrath M. Freezer plan bid to save coral. BBC News. URL, http://news.bbc. co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8324954.stm; October 25, 2009. Copenhagen. [21] Dimitrov RS. Confronting non-regimes: science and international coral reef policy. J Env Devel 2002;11(1):53e78. [22] Folke C. The economic perspective: conservation against development versus conservation for development. Conserv Biol 2006;20(3):686e8. [23] Jacques P. Globalization and the world ocean. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press; 2006. p. 189. [24] Latour B. Why has critique run out of steam? from matters of fact to matters of concern. Crit Inq 2004;30:225e48.

[25] Maynard JA, Baird AH, Pratchett MS. Revisiting the Cassandra syndrome; the changing climate of coral reef research. Coral Reefs 2008;27:745e9. [26] Rydin Y. Conflict, consensus, and rationality in environmental planning: an institutional discourse approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 200. [27] Carden K. Bridging the divide: the role of science in species conservation law. Harv Environ Law Rev 2006;30:165e259. [28] Grafton RQ, Kompas T. Uncertainty and the active adaptive management of marine reserves. Marine Policy 2005;29:471e9. [29] Kelleher G, Recchia C. Lessons from marine protected areas around the world. Parks 1998;8(2):1e4. [30] Wittgenstein L. Philosophical investigations. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan; 1971. [31] Brown SR. Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1980. [32] Eden S, Donaldson A, Walker G. Structuring subjectivities? using Q methodology in human geography. Area 2005;37(4):413e22. [33] Bradbury RH, Seymour RM. Coral reef science and the new commons. Coral Reefs 2009;28:831e7. [34] Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996. [35] Latour B. Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 1983. p. 274. [36] Popper K. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper; 1968. [37] Robbins P, Krueger R. Beyond bias? the promise and limits of Q method in human geography. Prof Geogr 1999;52(4):636e48. [38] Barabasi A-L. Linked. New York: Plume, Penguin Group; 2003. [39] Rocheleau D, Roth R. Rooted networks, relational webs and powers of connection: rethinking human and political ecologies. Geoforum 2007;38:433e7. [40] Stoddart DR. On geography. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1986. p. 335. [41] Law J. On the methods of long-distance control: vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India. In: John Law, editor. Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? London: Routledge; 1986. p. 234e63. [42] Dobbs D. Reef madness: Charles Darwin, Alexander Agassiz, and the meaning of coral. New York: Pantheon; 2005. [43] Livingstone DN. Putting science in its place: geographies of scientific knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2003. p. 234. [44] Pyenson L, Sheets-Pyenson S. Servants of nature: a history of scientific institutions, enterprises and sensibilities. London: HarperCollins Publishers; 1999. p. 496. [45] Franklin S. Science as culture, cultures of science. Annu Rev Anthropol 1995;24:163e84. [46] Turner II BL. Contested identities: human-environment geography and disciplinary implications in a restructuring academy. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2002;92(1):52e74. [47] Demeritt D. What is the ‘social construction of nature’? a typology and sympathetic critique. Prog Hum Geogr 2002;26:767e90. [48] Shapin S. Placing the view from nowhere: historical and sociological problems in the location of science. Trans Inst Br Geogr New Ser 1998;23(1):5e12. [49] Harper CL. Environment and society: human perspectives on environmental issues. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; 2004. p. 482. [50] Bischof B. What is killing the reefs? in year of science and the future 1999. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.; 1998. pp. 8e25. [51] Reaka-Kudla ML. In: Reaka-Kudla ML, Wilson DE, Wilson EO, editors. The global biodiversity of coral reefs: a comparison with rain forests. In biodiversity II: understanding and protecting our biological resources. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press; 1997. p. 83e108. [52] Christie DR, Hildreth RG. Coastal ocean management law in a nutshell. 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West; 1994. p. 446. [53] UNCLOS [United Nations convention on the law of the Sea] (1982). URL, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_ convention.htm>; December 2, 2009. [54] Forsyth T. Critical political ecology: the politics of environmental science. London: Routledge; 2003. p. 320. [55] Laferriere E, Stoett PJ. International relations theory and ecological thought. London: Routledge; 1999. p. 209. [56] Christie P, White AT. Best practices for improved governance of coral reef marine protected areas. Coral Reefs 2007;26:1047e56. [57] Cinner JE. Designing marine reserves to reflect local socioeconomic conditions: lessons from long-enduring customary management systems. Coral Reefs 2007;26:1035e45. [58] Pomeranz K, Topik S. The World that trade created: society, culture, and the world economy 1400 to the present. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.; 1999. p. 256. [59] Goreau TF. The ecology of Jamaican coral reefs I. species composition and zonation. Ecology 1959;40(1):67e90. [60] Lambert D, Martins L, Ogborn M. Currents, visions and voyages: historical geographies of the sea. J Hist Geogr 2006;32:479e93. [61] Peterson RG, Stramma L, Kortum G. Early concepts and charts of ocean circulation. Prog Oceanogr 1996;37:1e115. [62] Vaughan TW. A contribution to the geologic history of the Floridian Plateau. Papers from the Tortugas Laboratory, 133. Carnegie Institute of Washington Pub; 1910. 99e185. [63] Vaughan TW. Corals and the formation of coral reefs. Annu Rep Smithson Inst; 1917:189e276.

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614 [64] Darwin C. Voyage of the Beagle VIII. London: Henry Colburn; 1839. [65] Davis WM. The coral reef problem. Am Geogr Soc Special Pub No. 9. New York: American Geographical Society; 1928. 596 pp.. [66] Darwin C. In: Barrett PH, Freeman RB, editors. The structure and distribution of coral reefs. The works of Charles Darwin, 7. London: Pickering; 1986. [67] Dana JD. Coral reefs and islands. New York: G.P. Putnam; 1853. p. 143. [68] Agassiz A. On the formation of barrier reefs and of the different types of atolls. R Soc Lond Proc 1903;71:412e4. [69] Edgeworth TW, Sollas WJ. Narrative of the second and third expeditions. In: The Atoll of Funafuti: borings into a coral reef and the results being the report of the coral reef Committee of the Royal Society. London: Royal Society of London; 1904. p. 1e60. Section IV. [70] Emery KO. Submarine geology of Bikini atoll. Geol Soc Am Bull 1948;59: 855e60. [71] Dana JD. Corals and coral islands. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co; 1879. p. 406. [72] Deacon M. Scientists and the sea, 1650e1900: a study of marine science. London: Academic Press; 1971. p. 445. [73] Mayor AG. Causes which produce stable conditions in the depth of the floors of Pacific fringing reef-flats, vol. 340. New York: Carnegie Institution Publication; 1924. [74] Thomson Sir CW. The voyage of the ‘Challenger’: the Atlantic: a preliminary account of the general results of the exploring voyage of the H.M.S. challenger during the year 1873 and the early part of the year 1876, vol. I.. London: MacMillan and Co; 1877. p. 424. [75] Dayton PK, Sala E. Natural history: the sense of wonder, creativity and progress in ecology. Scientia Marina 2001;65(Suppl. 2):199e206. [76] Bowler PJ. The Norton history of environmental sciences. New York: W.W. Norton & Co; 1992. p 634. [77] Russell FS, Yonge CM. The seas: our knowledge of life in the sea and how it is gained. 3rd ed. London and New York: Frederick Warne & Co. Ltd; 1963. [78] Miner RW. The reef builders of the tropic seas. Nat Hist 1925;25(3):250e60. [79] Somerfield PJ, Jaap WC, Clarke KR, Callahan M, Hackett K, Porter J, et al. Changes in coral reef communities among the Florida Keys, 1996e2003. Coral Reefs 2008;27:951e65. [80] Agassiz A. A reconnaissance of the Bahamas and of the elevated reefs of Cuba. Harv Mus Comp Zool Bull 1894;26:1e203. [81] Agassiz A. A visit to the Bermudas in March, 1894. Harv Mus Comp Zool Bull 1895;26:205e81. [82] Vaughan TW. The building of the Marquesas and Tortugas atolls and a sketch of the geological history of the Florida reef tract. Papers from the Tortugas Laboratory Pub No. 182. Carnegie Institute of Washington; 1914. 57e67. [83] Beebe W. Beneath tropic seas: a record of diving among the coral reefs of Haiti. New York, London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; 1928. [84] Yonge CM. A year on the great barrier reef. New York: G.P. Putnam and Sons; 1930. [85] Jackson JB. Reefs since Columbus. Coral Reefs 1997;16(Suppl.):S23e32. [86] Jackson JB, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, Bourque BJ, et al. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 2001;293(5529):629e38. [87] Hall of Ocean Life history page website. American Museum of Natural History, http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/ocean/04_history/? area¼history; 2009. accessed Nov.2009. [88] Calypso history. URL. Cousteau Society, http://www.cousteau.org/about-us/ calypso-history; 2009. accessed Nov 2009. [89] Matsen B. Jacques Cousteau: the sea king. New York: Pantheon; 2009. p. 320. [90] Marx R. In: Gordon Pirie R, editor. 1. The early history of diving in oceanography: contemporary readings in ocean sciences. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 3e22. [91] Bryant D, Burke L, McManus J, Spalding M. Reefs at risk: a map-based indicator of threats to the world’s coral reefs. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute; 1998 [June]. [92] Terborgh J, Van Schaik C, Davenport L, Rao M, editors. Making parks work: strategies of preserving tropical nature. Washington, DC.: Island Press; 2002. p. 512. [93] Trist C.R. Changes in the Sea: The Political Ecology of Marine Management in Soufriere, St. Lucia. Ph.D. Dissertation. Berkeley: Dept. of Geography, University of California; 2000. [94] Walley CJ. Rough waters: nature and development in an East African marine park. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2004. p. 308. [95] Gardner TA, Cote I, Gill JA, Grant A, Watinson AR. Long-term region-wide declines in Caribbean corals. Science 2003;301(5635):958e60. [96] Jackson JB. What was natural in the coastal oceans? Proc Nat Acad Sci 2001;98(10):5411e8. [97] McCulloch M. Coral record of increased sediment flux to the inner Great Barrier Reef since European settlement. Nature 2003;421:727e30. [98] Pauly D. Anecdotes and the shifting base-line syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol Evol 1995;10(10):430. [99] Sheppard C. The shifting baseline syndrome. Mar Poll Bull 1995;30 (12):766e7. [100] Pennekamp John. Coral reef state park homepage, http://www.pennekamppark. com/; Oct. 30 2009. [101] Great Barrier Reef marine park authority website, http://www.gbrmpa.gov. au/corp_site/about_us; Oct. 30 2009.

613

[102] McClanahan TR, Marnane MJ, Cinner JE, Kiene WE. A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral reef management. Curr Biol 2006;16:1408e13. [103] Adams W. Green development: environment and sustainability in the third world. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2001. [104] Frontani HG. Conflicts in marine protected area management. FOCUS Geogr 2006;48(4):17e24. [105] Hughes TP, Bellwood DR, Folke CS, McCook LJ, Pandolfi JM. No-take areas, herbivory and coral reef resilience. Trends Ecol Evol 2006;22:1e3. [106] Agardy T. Global marine conservation policy versus site-level implementation: the mismatch of scale and its implications. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 2005;300:242e8. [107] Almany GR, Connolly SR, Heath DD, Hogan JD, Jones GP, McCook LJ, et al. Connectivity, biodiversity conservation and the design of marine reserve networks for coral reefs. Coral Reefs 2009;28:339e51. [108] Cowen RK, Lwiza KMM, Sponaugle S, Paris CB, Olson DB. Connectivity of marine populations: open or closed? Science 2000;287:857e9. [109] Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, et al. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 2004;35:557e81. [110] Mora C, Andréfouët S, Costello MJ, Kranenburg C, Rollo A, Veron JE, et al. Coral reefs and the global network of protected areas. Science 2006;312: 1750e1. [111] Steneck RS, Paris CB, Arnold SN, Alban-Lagman MC, Alcala AC, Butler MJ, et al. Thinking and managing outside the box: coalescing connectivity networks to build region-wide resilience in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs 2009;28:367e78. [112] Hardin G. Tragedy of the commons. Science 1968;162(3859):1243e8. [113] Russ GR, Zeller DC. From mare liberum to mare reservarum. Marine Policy 2003;27:75e8. [114] Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997;387:253e60. [115] Costanza R, Andrade F, Antunes P, van den Belt M, Boesch D, Boersma D, et al. Ecological economics and sustainable governance of the oceans. Ecol Econ 1999;31:171e87. [116] Lubchenco J, Palumbi SR, Gaines SD, Andelman S. plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves. Ecol Appl 2003;13 (Suppl. 1):S3e7. [117] Pretty J, Smith D. Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management. Conserv Biol 2004;18(3):631e8. [118] McClanahan TR. Is there a future for coral reef parks in poor tropical countries? Coral Reefs 1999;18:321e5. [119] Cleary D. The questionable effectiveness of science spending by international conservation organizations in the tropics. Conserv Biol 2006;20 (3):733e8. [120] Costanza R. Science and ecological economics: integrating of the study of humans and the rest of nature. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2009;29(5):358e73. [121] Jameson SC, Tupper MH, Ridley JM. The three screen doors: can marine "protected" areas be effective? Mar Poll Bull 2002;44:1177e83. [122] Kareiva P. Conservation biology: beyond marine protected areas. Curr Biol 2006;16(14):534e5. [123] Aronson R, Precht W. Conservation, precaution and Caribbean coral reefs. Coral Reefs 2006;25:441e50. [124] Aswani S, Albert S, Sebatian A, Furusawa T. Customary management as precautionary and adaptive principles for protecting coral reefs in Oceania. Coral Reefs 2007;26:1009e21. [125] NOAA [National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration]. URL, http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/foundations/coral/#us; 2007. accessed December 2009. [126] WRI [World Resources Institute]. URL, http://www.wri.org/project/ valuation-caribbean-reefs; 2009. accessed December 2009. [127] Anthony KRN, Kline DI, Diaz-Pulido G, Dove S, Hoegh-Guldberg O. Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2008;105:17442e6. [128] Peñaflor EL, Skirving WJ, Strong AE, Heron SF, David LT. Sea-surface temperature and thermal stress in the Coral Triangle over the past two decades. Coral Reefs 2009;28:841e50. [129] Kleypas JA, Eakin M. Scientists’ perceptions of threats to coral reefs: results of a survey of coral reef researchers. Bull Mar Sci 2007;80(2):419e36. [130] Pew Research Center For the People & The Press. Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago, http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf; 2009. p. 98. [131] Pew Research Center For the People & The Press. Modest support for "Cap and trade" policy: fewer Americans see solid evidence of global warming, http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf>; 2009. p. 23. [132] Bodin Ö, Crona B, Ernstson H. Social network in natural resource management: what is there to Learn from a structural perspective? Ecol Soc 2006;11 (2), http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/resp2/. r2. [133] Boesch DF. The role of science in ocean governance. Ecol Econ 1999; 31:189e98. [134] Richardson BC. The Caribbean in the wider world, 1492-1992: a regional geography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998. p. 235. [135] Jentoft S, Van Son TC, BJørkan M. Marine protected areas: a governance system analysis. Hum Ecol 2007;35(5):611e22.

614

B.G. Bischof / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 597e614

[136] FAO. Fact Sheet: the international fish trade and world fisheries. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organiztion (FAO), http://www.fao.org/ newsroom/common/ecg/1000850/en/fishtradefacts08b.pdf; 2008. [137] Smith JL. World oil: market or mayhem? J Econ Perspect 2009;23(3):145e64. [138] Donner SD, Potere D. The inequity of the global threat to coral reefs. Bioscience 2007;57(3):214e5. [139] Dimitrov RS. Knowledge, power and interests in environmental regime formation. Intern Stud Q 2003;47:123e50. [140] Hansenclever A, Mayer P, Rittberger V. Theories of international regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997. [141] Krasner Steven, editor. International regimes. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press; 1983. [142] Steinberg Philip E. Navigating to multiple Horizons: toward a geography of ocean-Space. Prof Geogr 1999;51(3):366e75. [143] Steinberg Philip E. Social construction of the oceans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. p. 239. [144] Aronson Richard. President, the international society for coral reef studies. Personal Communication; October 31, 2009. [145] Hendee Jim. Coral-list serve administrator. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; November 2009. [146] Latour Bruno, Woolgar S. Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1979. [147] Hinchliffe S. Geographies of nature: societies, environments, ecologies. London: Sage; 2007. [148] Carr MH, Neigel JE, Estes JA, Andelman S, Warner RR, Largier JL. Comparing marine and terrestrial ecosystems: implications for the design of coastal marine reserves. Ecol Appl 2003;13(1):S90e107.

[149] Bentley JH. Sea and ocean basins as frameworks of historical analysis. Geogr Rev 1999;89(2):215e44. [150] Giordano M. The geography of the commons: the role of scale and space. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2003;93(2):365e75. [151] St. Martin K. Toward a Cartography of the commons: constituting the political and economic possibilities of place. Prof Geogr 2009;61(4): 493e507. [152] Robbins P. The politics of barstool biology: environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum 2006;37:185e99. [153] Brown S. Personal communication. professor, political science. Kent State University; 2009 [Q-Methodology list-serve administrator]. [154] Stephenson W. Technique of factor analysis. Nature 1935;136(297). [155] Stephenson W. The study of behavior: Q-Technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1953. [156] Donner J. Using Q-sorts in participatory processes: an introduction to the methodology. social development papers, No. 36; June 2001. [157] Keynes JM. A treatise on probability. London: MacMillan; 1921. [158] McKeown B, Thomas D. Q Methodology. Series: quantitative applications in the social sciences, vol. 66. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc; 1988. [159] Addams H, Proops J. Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; 2000. [160] Hughes TP, Bellwood DR, Connolly SR. Biodiversity hotspots, centers of endemicity and the conservation of coral reefs. Ecol Lett 2002;5:775e84. [161] Onuf N. World of our making: rules and rule in social theory and international relations. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press; 1989. [162] Barry J, Proops J. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecol Econ 2005;28:337e45.