Scientific engagement and the development of marine aquaculture in Santa Catarina, southern Brazil

Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104840

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Scientific engagement and the development of marine aquaculture in Santa Catarina, southern Brazil

T

Thomas G. Safforda,∗, Paulo Freire Vieirab, Marcus Polettec a

Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire, 15 Academic Way, Durham, NH, 03824, USA Núcleo Transdisciplinar de Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Sociologia Política, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Bloco D - Sala 303, Caixa Postal 476, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil c Escola do Mar, Ciência e Tecnologia Ambiental - Laboratório de Conservação e Gerenciamento Costeiro, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí – UNIVALI, Rua Uruguai 458 Bloco D8 Sala104, Itajaí, Santa Catarina, Brazil b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Coastal development planning Scientists Mariculture Science-based management Applied sociology

Science-based marine aquaculture, or mariculture, is expanding around the world. Nonetheless, how scientists engage in mariculture planning, and why particular types of data are used to inform development decisionmaking, is less clear. In the southern Brazilian state of Santa Catarina, coastal managers and scientists embarked on an ambitious effort to establish shellfish farming and created a thriving mariculture industry. This study draws upon in-depth interviews with scientists, government officials, and shellfish growers to better understand the social forces that affected scientific engagement in mariculture planning in Santa Catarina. From agronomic insights about shellfish growth to microbiological understanding of pathogenic threats to seafood, wide-ranging types of science could inform mariculture planning. Our data show marked differences in 1) the involvement of scientists based on their disciplinary expertise and 2) the use of production versus impact or risk-related data to support decision-making. Utilizing conceptual insights from sociological study of science and institutions, we show how normative, cultural-cognitive, and regulative forces influence both scientists’ involvement in planning and the use of scientific data to inform mariculture-related decisions. Most notably, asymmetries appear in the effects of norms related to methodological practices among scientists focused on enhancing shellfish production versus those investigating potential health and environmental concerns. Cultural differences among scientists from different disciplines also affected their inclination to collaborate with government officials and growers. Finally, ambiguities in mariculture-related regulations led to the differential involvement of scientists, in particular hindering investigations focused on seafood safety and public health. These results illustrate that social forces influence how science is practiced and that this, in turn, shapes the course of science-based mariculture development. Given their key social role, broader sociological investigation of scientists as social actors could provide valuable insights to those seeking to ensure coastal development is both socially and ecologically sustainable.

1. Introduction Around the globe, policy makers have focused on promoting new more sustainable coastal enterprises and science-based planning approaches have emerged as the prevailing development paradigm (Cashmore, 2004; Costa-Pierce, 2008; Klinger and Naylor, 2012; Van Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2006). Nonetheless, debates regarding how and by whom data should be interpreted, and concerns about the appropriation of scientific rationale to support economic or political interests, have led to questions about what role scientists themselves should play in science-based planning processes (Bäckstrand, 2003; Banerjee, 2003;

∗

Haas, 2017; Monteiro and Rajão, 2017; Spruijt et al., 2014). Nowhere are the complexities of science-driven approaches more evident than with novel activities where planners rely on scientific expertise to guide on-the-ground development practice (Hessels and Van Lente, 2008; Slocombe, 1993; Wuelser et al., 2012). Responding to concerns about declining ocean fisheries, both planners and scientists have championed marine aquaculture, or mariculture, as an environmentally and socially sustainable alternative for coastal communities (Bostock et al., 2010; FAO, 2016; Goldburg, 2008; Klinger and Naylor, 2012; Subasinghe et al., 2009). The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has identified mariculture as critical for

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: Tom.Saff[email protected] (T.G. Safford), [email protected] (P.F. Vieira), [email protected] (M. Polette).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104840 Received 19 December 2018; Received in revised form 8 May 2019; Accepted 3 June 2019 Available online 07 June 2019 0964-5691/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104840

T.G. Safford, et al.

2.1. Production science and shellfish mariculture development

global food security and has called for increasing mariculture-related science to support its expansion (FAO, 2016). However, scientific studies also point to potential ecological impacts and health risks from farmed seafood (Bostock et al., 2010; Cole et al., 2009). These complex interconnections between science and mariculture development make it an ideal case for social science investigation of why and how scientists engage in coastal planning. This study examines how differentiation within the scientific community affects scientists’ involvement in mariculture planning and the use of scientific data to inform decision making. Drawing upon data from in-depth interviews with scientists, government officials, and growers, we explore how social factors affect scientific engagement through a case study of shellfish mariculture development in the state of Santa Catarina in southern Brazil. First, we outline scientific involvement in mariculture-related activities in Santa Catarina. We then elaborate our conceptual framework, derived from sociological study of institutions, and our methodological approach. A synthesis of interview data then follows, illustrating that scientists are not only critical data providers, but they are also influential social actors who through their interactions with each other and science-users shape the course of science-based mariculture development. Finally, we discuss how our results might inform future marine planning activities in Santa Catarina and beyond, highlighting the important contributions of sociological inquiry.

From the outset, the production science community was closely tied to the establishment of shellfish farming in Santa Catarina. Agronomic scientists from the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) played key roles in expanding farming of Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas, in the waters near Florianópolis in the 1990s (de Andrade, 2016; Ferreira and Oliveira Neto, 2007; Poli, 2004). Studies of this phase of development note funding from the Canadian government and collaborative research with scientists at the University of Victoria as critical to the success of oyster farming (de Andrade, 2016; Ferreira and Oliveira Neto, 2007; Harvey et al., 2016; Manzoni, 2005). Another important event during this phase was the formation of the Laboratory for Marine Mollusks (LMM) at UFSC. Among other activities, researchers there grew juvenile oyster seed that were then offered to growers at little cost. The lab institutionalized local universities into the role of providing production-focused science and commercially valuable technical assistance to farmers (Lins, 2006, 2010). Working with growers and governmental actors, extension agents from the Santa Catarina State Agricultural Extension Agency (EPAGRI)1 facilitated the application of production science, while also fostering partnerships with university scientists. Whereas oysters dominated mariculture near Florianópolis, communities in other areas of the state began to commercially grow native mussels Perna perna (Manzoni, 2005; Poli, 2004; Ferreira and Oliveira Neto, 2007; Marenzi and Branco, 2006). Production scientists from the Valley of Itajaí University (Univali) were pivotal players in the expansion of mussel mariculture particularly in the municipality of Penha (Marenzi and Branco, 2006; Manzoni, 2005). Because they initially relied on wild seed, mussel growers did not develop the same reliance on inputs from production scientists as oyster growers. Early musselrelated scientific inquiry focused on enhancing production, but also on illustrating environmental concerns such as impacts associated with wild seed collection (Rodrigues, 2007; Pereira and Rocha, 2015; Valenti et al., 2000).

2. Science, scientists, and shellfish mariculture in Santa Catarina With one of the world's longest coastlines, the connection between the land and the sea plays a crucial social and economic role in Brazil. Nonetheless, it is only recently that mariculture emerged as a coastal development priority (Diegues, 2006; EPAGRI, 2015; MPA, 2015; Rodrigues et al., 2012). As Brazilian policy makers consider the practicability of national mariculture programs, they have looked to Santa Catarina for lessons and insights (See Fig. 1). In the wake of declining wild-capture fisheries, Santa Catarina embarked on various mariculture initiatives, focusing primarily on shellfish and shrimp. Of the species cultivated, oysters and mussels were the most successful and they expanded rapidly in this state from the 1990s forward (Jacomel and Campos, 2014; Paulilo, 2002; Rodrigues et al., 2010; Sidonio et al., 2012; Suplicy et al., 2017; Vianna et al., 2012). In just over twenty years, Santa Catarina became the third largest producer of marine-farmed seafood in Brazil and it is now the country's largest producer of shellfish (MPA, 2014, 2015; Suplicy et al., 2017). The history of shellfish farming in Santa Catarina is well documented (Paulilo, 2002; Rodrigues et al., 2010; Suplicy et al., 2017; Vianna et al., 2012). Rather than re-relating this account, we focus on identifying when, why, and how different types of scientists contributed to the development of mariculture. Shellfish farming connects to a range of scientific disciplines. The agronomic sciences provide expertise regarding production, while data related to water quality, health concerns, and social, economic, and environmental dimensions are essential to ensure the sustainability and safety of farmed seafood for consumption (Costa-Pierce, 2008; Pillay and Kutty, 2005; Subasinghe et al., 2009). We hypothesized that there would be important differences in the way scientists linked to the production, or growing of shellfish, and those examining threats such as water quality or health-concerns, contributed to mariculture planning and decision-making. Thus, for analytical purposes, we created two overarching categories, defined by the principal applications of data and expertise, “production science” and “impact science,” to organize our consideration of different sciences and scientists in this study.

2.2. Impact science and shellfish mariculture development While production scientists actively supported the expansion of shellfish farming in Santa Catarina, impact science proceeded in a different manner. Early water quality studies refer to threats such as harmful algal blooms (HABs) (Proença et al., 2001; Proença, 2006), but collaboration between impact scientists and planners was not overt as with production scientists. Similarly, there is no evidence of systematic engagement by health scientists during the early expansion of mariculture that might have provided actionable data and insights related to the handling and safety of shellfish post-harvest. Nonetheless, impact-related inquiry proceeded independently, and scientific findings show the presence of bacteriological and other water quality threats near shellfish growing areas in Santa Catarina. Ecotoxicology studies have uncovered polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), vibrio bacteria, heavy metals, among other contaminants (Garbossa et al., 2017; Souza et al., 2012; Pessatti et al., 2016). In addition, inadequate sewage treatment is problematic across the coast and has been linked to the presence of adenovirus, norovirus, fecal coliform, and hepatitis A (Coelho et al., 2003; Garbossa et al., 2017; Mello et al., 2018; Moresco et al., 2012; Rigotto et al., 2010; Souza et al., 2012). These studies highlight the vulnerability of mariculture and point to the need for additional research related to seasonal shifts affecting patterns of contamination and assessing the efficacy of different monitoring programs (Garbossa et al., 2017; Mello et al., 2018; Ramos et al., 2014; Souza et al., 2012; Sáenz et al., 2010; Tureck 1 Initially this agency was known as ACARPESC, but it was later re-named EPAGRI.

2

Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104840

T.G. Safford, et al.

Fig. 1. Map of study region in Santa Catarina, Southern Brazil.

known about why scientists participate or do not participate in planning processes or how their individual and collective behavior reflect the social contexts in which they work. Organizations, ranging from governmental agencies and universities to seafood businesses and distributors, also affect the collection of mariculture-related data and the engagement of scientists. Sociologists have long studied scientists and science-related organizations, examining how social forces influence the practice of research (Gieryn, 1983; Merton, 1973; Nowotny et al., 2001; Scott, 2008). Studies of science-based development highlight the importance of social factors such as shared values and beliefs, behavioral norms, institutional arrangements, and the cultures of organizations in shaping research agendas, data dissemination, and scientists’ involvement in decision-making (Bäckstrand, 2003; McNie, 2007; Ozawa, 1996; Pielke, 2007; Rudd, 2014; Spruijt et al., 2014; Young et al., 2014). While investigating how data are generated and applied is important, understanding why certain types of scientific research are not executed or data are not applied is crucial as well (Frickel et al., 2010; Hess, 2009; Moore et al., 2011). Existing social scientific research also demonstrates that views about research methods, who produces data, and how scientists interact with one another and science-users affect perceptions of the validity of scientific findings and support for sciencebased decision making (Cash et al., 2006; Pielke, 2007; Gieryn, 1983; Merton, 1973; Nowotny et al., 2001; Norman et al., 2016; Tureck and Oliveira, 2003; Wynne, 2016). Myriad institutional forces shape mariculture planning, influencing both individual and organizational-level decisions and behaviors. From a sociological perspective, institutions are socially generated frameworks, constructed from beliefs and conceptions about appropriate behaviors, that provide stability and meaning to social life (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; Safford and Norman, 2011; Scott, 2008). Given the overarching importance of institutions in shaping both individual and organizational behavior, we apply a conceptual framework from sociological analysis of institutions to guide our research. For analytical purposes, sociologists often classify institutional influences as three distinct types: regulative, normative, and culturalcognitive (Scott, 2008). Regulative institutions take form as laws and rules that both facilitate and constrain behavior. Normative institutions

and Oliveira, 2003). Similarly, the absence of comprehensive postharvest food safety or epidemiological studies suggest possible risks during these critical phases of the shellfish production chain. There was one marked exception related to impact scientists' engagement in the public health aspects of mariculture planning. In 2010, Santa Catarina created the Committee for the Sanitary Control of Mollusks (CECMB) (Santa Catarina, 2010). This committee brought together impacts scientists, growers, extension agents, and government officials to develop targeted approaches to shellfish safety. The CECMB forwarded scientific understanding of HABs and other water quality concerns and institutionalized a more collaborative management approach. While this body created an impetus for multi-party health risk mitigation, questions remain about the committee's ability to harmonize production interests and public health and safety. Assessing potential environmental effects is another important area of impact-related mariculture science. In Santa Catarina, several scientific studies examined hydrodynamics and oceanographic conditions around growing areas and assessed the possible impacts from mariculture on the marine environment (Bonetti et al., 2007; Barroso et al., 2007; Rudorff et al., 2012). This research found limited connections between shellfish farming and ecological change, however, it highlighted potential environmental concerns and included recommendations for limiting these risks in future development. Finally, it is important to note that marine spatial planning initiatives in Santa Catarina have included both ecosystem assessments and geospatial analyses. These studies drew upon both production and impact-related scientific data to inform mariculture planning (Novaes et al., 2011; Suplicy et al., 2017; Vianna et al., 2012; Vianna and Bonetti Filho, 2018). However, given our analytical emphasis, we focused on the engagement of scientists producing these underlying data and analyses, rather than the scientists conducting the geospatial aggregation.

3. Scientists, planning, and applied sociological analysis The extant literature shows that scientific data provide important technical rationale for natural resource management (Cash et al., 2003; Cashmore, 2004; McIntyre, 2009; Slocombe, 1993). However, less is 3

Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104840

T.G. Safford, et al.

mussels and oysters. Shellfish in Santa Catarina are sold directly to consumers by farmers as well as through distributors. Thus, we included several independent distributors in our shellfish producer category. We also limited our selection of producers to three municipalities, Florianópolis, Palhoça, and Penha (See Fig. 1). These three municipalities have the largest number of shellfish farms and include areas where oysters (Florianópolis) and mussels (Palhoça and Penha) are the primary species (EPAGRI, 2016). Overall, we interviewed twenty-four growers and distributors.

appear as norms that guide social practices that are internalized through interactions and socialization. Cultural-cognitive institutions are embedded in the culture of groups of individuals and organizations and emerge as beliefs or myths about what constitute appropriate behaviors (Scott, 2008). In most cases, individuals and organizations intentionally enact regulative and normative institutions, while cultural-cognitive institutions are less defined and develop from subconscious social-psychological forces (Scott, 2008). These different types of institutions are not mutually exclusive and together shape the actions of individuals and groups involved in common undertakings. These conceptual insights provide the analytical frame that guides our investigation of scientists’ engagement in mariculture planning in Santa Catarina.

4.3. Governmental actors Finally, we interviewed twenty-three officials from a range of municipal, state, and federal agencies linked with mariculture development. They included individuals from sub-sectors within governmental agencies with planning, management, and regulatory responsibilities. For the purposes of selecting respondents, we subdivided marine management and health and food safety actors, as they had distinct data needs and applications. Given their key role in information transfer and training, we also included a special subcategory for extension agents. While some of these individuals were involved in scientific research, they more generally played management and application roles and thus were included in the governmental respondent category. The background literature related to mariculture in Santa Catarina along with the conceptual framework from institutional sociology guided the development of our interview questions and structured the analysis of our data. Each respondent was asked a series of questions related to regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive factors linked to mariculture science, scientists, and the use of data to inform planning. Questions also focused on understanding scientists’ behaviors related to all aspects of inquiry (question development, data collection and analysis, and the dissemination of results). Finally, another subset of questions homed in on interactions, asking both scientists and scienceusers about the nature of their intra and inter-group interactions and factors they believed facilitated or impeded collaboration. These qualitative interviews were then organized and coded to identify key facets of science-based mariculture development as well as regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive institutional factors affecting scientific engagement. Subsequently, these data were then analyzed using a concept-mapping technique that identified consistent patterns in the connections between different institutional influences and respondents’ stated beliefs and values and the behavior of scientists related to mariculture planning (Trochim, 2000; Yin, 1994). Such a concept-mapping methodology can be an effective analytical approach for investigating similarities and differences in the responses of subgroups of individuals involved in shared endeavors such as mariculture development (Bitektine, 2008; Trochim, 2000).

4. Research design and methods Given the emergent nature of the topics under investigation, we conducted an in-depth case study using a grounded inductive approach (Yin, 1994). To establish a baseline understanding of science-based mariculture development in Santa Catarina, we first utilized secondary sources (government documents, scientific articles, and websites) to understand the planning process and scientific investigation of mariculture-related concerns. With our focus on the role of scientists linked to all aspects of shellfish mariculture, we then created a multi-level typology of actors to guide the identification of respondents (See Table 1). At the highest level, our typology consisted of scientific researchers, shellfish producers, and governmental actors. We then identified key subcategories within these overarching groups to structure our selection of interviewees. Overall, we conducted sixty-one semi-structured interviews in 2014 and 2015. The actual number of respondents within each subgroup varied based on their population. However, we sought to ensure breadth across these analytical subunits and from sub-sectors of organizations and relevant scientists and science-users across the shellfish production chain. 4.1. Scientific researchers To locate scientists linked to mariculture, we reviewed the literature to identify both production and impact-related researchers who had published articles concerning shellfish farming, marine environmental conditions, or seafood safety in Santa Catarina. These individuals included scientists from the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Valley of Itajaí University (Univali), the Federal Institute of Santa Catarina (IFSC), and government research centers. While scientists from other universities have been involved in mariculture-related research, we focused on these universities and laboratories as these investigators and their home institutions were most connected to shellfish mariculture in Santa Catarina. In total, we interviewed fourteen individuals in the scientific researcher category. Seven were categorized as production scientists and another seven as impact scientists.

5. Results Our interview data illustrate that a wide array of social forces influence scientists' involvement in mariculture planning. Nonetheless, our findings show that, more than others, two overarching factors shape scientific engagement and science-based decision making, 1) behavioral responses to intra-scientific norms and cultures and 2) structural effects

4.2. Shellfish producers We stratified our selection of shellfish producers to ensure that we interviewed small- and large-scale farmers and those who grew both Table 1 Typology of mariculture interview respondents. Scientific Researchers

Shellfish Producers

Governmental Actors

Production sciences (sub-disciplines | sub-universities and laboratories) Impact sciences (sub-disciplines | sub-universities | academic/government)

Type of shellfish cultivated (mussels/oysters)

Marine management (organizational sub-divisions | level of authority – federal/state/municipal) Health/food safety (organizational sub-divisions | level of authority – federal/state/municipal) Extension (organizational sub-sectors)

Production scale and distribution (large/medium/small | direct-sale/independent distributor) Growing locale (Florianópolis/Palhoça/Penha)

4

Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104840

T.G. Safford, et al.

suggesting disinterestedness, multiple replication, and reducing uncertainty before applying results. Patterns in interview data show that these norms and distinct intra-science cultural attributes were embedded within the practices of the production science community and led to similar behavioral responses that encouraged them to apply their expertise to support decision-making related to shellfish mariculture development.

resulting from regulations and public policies. Thus, we use these two factors to organize our qualitative data and highlight patterns in the institutional influences on scientists’ behaviors and the use of scientific expertise to inform mariculture planning. Norms common to all sciences emphasize the importance of multiple verifications of findings, reducing uncertainty, and disinterestedness within scientific praxis (Gieryn, 1983; Merton, 1973). Scientific training and research experience help internalize these and other common beliefs and values to form distinct scientific cultures that can vary markedly by discipline (Pickering, 1992; Merton, 1973). For an applied area such as mariculture-related science, the speed by which scientific inquiry advances, when results should be disseminated, and whether decisions should made based on preliminary results is less defined. Findings from this study show that scientists’ behaviors and their decisions regarding when and how to apply their results often hinge on cultural interpretations and socially constructed beliefs about what defines appropriate scientific practice.

5.2. Intra-science norms and culture: impact scientists While production scientists emphasized engaged science, impact scientists shared interests in important intra-science questions. Interview data show that discipline-specific scientific concerns (e.g. related to microbiology, virology, or biochemistry) most often drove scientific praxis among impact scientists. Like their production-focused colleagues, these respondents were interested in innovation, but they focused more on scientific advances per se rather than prioritizing applications. Scientific certainty and reliability were mentioned regularly when describing their methodological approaches and interpretation of data. Many interviewees noted that it was almost accidental that their research connected to mariculture. For example, one scientist stated, “My scientific focus was always morphology and biochemical changes. It just happened that shellfish were an interesting organism for studying these processes.” Upon learning that this study's objective was to examine scientific engagement in mariculture, several impact scientists were surprised at even being asked to be interviewed despite the fact they conducted research related to shellfish. In contrast to the teams of production scientists working in the field, most impact scientists were associated with labs where basic scientific research was customary. This structuring of scientific practice meant impact scientists were not regularly a part of research teams focused on advancing mariculture development. Patterns across our data point to methodological and disciplinary-specific criteria, rather than applications, most often guiding impact-science research groups. Teams of virologists, biologists, and chemists existed, but impact scientists were most often lone investigators in terms of studying shellfish. However, this did not mean impact scientists were unaware of the implications of their research. Many of these respondents indicated that when they encountered results that might jeopardize the livelihoods of shellfish farmers they were cautious about disseminating these findings. “I understood what my results might mean for growers. I worried about hurting people. I felt unsure about how to share our findings.” In these instances, impact scientists sought to verify their results through multiple experiments, or they published their research in academic journals where there was not a necessity to directly consider the implications for the mariculture industry. While verification and replication are core scientific norms, our findings suggest that individual behaviors in responses to data uncertainty, or issues with reliability, vary between production and impact scientists. It is important to note a key outlier in these patterns. Impact scientists involved with the mollusk sanitary control committee, CECMB, collaboratively studied and addressed HAB and other water quality concerns. Like other impact scientists, these individuals emphasized methodological precision. However, our data also show they were acutely aware of the utility of their research for growers and regulators, and as a result they appeared to be more willing to share their findings, even if some uncertainty remained. HAB scientists linked to the CECMB were also more likely to say they had social interactions with government officials, growers, and production scientists than other impact scientists. As one scientist indicated, collaborative interactions through the committee fundamentally changed their behaviors. “Things changed with the formation of the committee. We heard from growers. We heard from regulators. It changed the way we thought about our science and applying our results.” Government officials and growers involved with the CECMB also pointed to its effectiveness and identified the committee as critical for integrating impact scientists into shellfish

5.1. Intra-science norms and culture: production scientists As an initial question, our interviewees were asked why they chose their scientific field. Production scientists emphasized a desire to engage in applied inquiry, conduct novel research, and be a part of establishing a vibrant shellfish industry. Many noted the distinct culture of the agronomic sciences and the sense of a social mission that was shared among their colleagues. Interview data also highlight a parallel interest among these scientists to push scientific boundaries to support social improvements and development. The widely internalized belief in this social rationale for mariculture science created a sense of urgency as well as an ethical foundation for their scientific practice. As one production scientist stated, “Poor coastal communities had few economic options and our lab had an opportunity to immediately assist them by demonstrating how to grow oysters.” These respondents also suggested that university administrators at UFSC and Univali championed development-focused science, further solidifying this norm within the production science community. Funding mechanisms also helped internalize these values. One of the most cited examples of this type of influence was the prominent socioeconomic objectives inherent to the early Canadian-funded mariculture projects. By prioritizing these goals, this funder helped solidify the social benefits of research as a core value among production scientists. Individuals involved with these projects also indicated that the structure of this Canadian funding encouraged experimentation and they believed this flexibility fostered scientific innovation and rapid technology transfers that helped generate immediate benefits for coastal communities. This culturally-reinforced affinity for experimentation and application was also validated by Brazilian scientists’ Canadian academic collaborators. Respondents noted that having their methodological approaches, emphasis on innovation, and focus on immediate social benefits endorsed by highly-regarded international scientists solidified these norms, values, and related behaviors. Similarly, social interactions among production scientists created a sense of communalism and broadened acceptance of both flexible interpretations of methodological practices as well as the social-value-ofscience norm. These shared interests also created solidarity between production scientists, government officials, and growers. In the words of one scientist, “The early years of mariculture were exciting, everyone was working together, government officials, extension agents, scientists, growers, everyone. We were doing great science and helping improve people's lives.” The fact that mariculture science most often occurred within teams of production scientists working collaboratively to develop applied outputs was noted by respondents as validating scientific practice that followed the aforementioned normative patterns. Social support enabled production scientists to forward their shared interest in science-based development that would benefit coastal communities while mitigating the influence of common scientific norms 5

Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104840

T.G. Safford, et al.

Both clandestinos and licensed farmers received oyster seed from the UFSC lab as well as technical assistance from EPAGRI. While scientists and extension agents believed this approach supported societal interests, certified farmers who obtained MAPA certification to sell shellfish were uneasy about these connections. They cited these technology transfers as tacit government support for illegal production and asserted that technical assistance to clandestinos undermined growers trying to follow the law and develop a formal industry. As one certified grower stated, “UFSC is a federal university using public funds to support illegal activities. I'm here following the law and scientists from the university take taxes I pay on my certified oysters and use them to grow seed to support my illegal competitors.” Licensed growers indicated that if UFSC and EPAGRI made certification a requirement for receiving seed or extension support, the problem of clandestine production would disappear. Conversely, scientists from UFSC believed their oyster seed and other research outputs were needed by coastal communities, provided social benefits, and that scientists and growers should not be penalized for governmental failures. Unregulated production had wider implications for the practice of impact science. These scientists noted numerous instances where clandestinos were growing mussels or oysters in areas prone to contamination. As one scientist stated, “I was conducting my study on effluent near a sewage treatment plant and I could see the shellfish farmer's buoys from the road directly below the outflow. The farm was so visible that it would be impossible for anyone, including government officials, to not see it.” Nonetheless, this scientist and others like him were hesitant to report these violations. Rather, they suggested that it was up to government authorities to regulate or close irregular farms. A small number of impact scientists indicated that they had voiced their concerns about inappropriate growing operations to government officials, but later desisted as no enforcement actions were taken. Given the regulatory uncertainty, none of these impact scientists felt inclined to interact with clandestine growers or inform them about the risks related to their farming practices. Like production scientists, respondents from marine management agencies recognized the problems with clandestinos, but indicated the issue would be addressed with time. Nearly uniformly, they believed this was a bureaucratic problem and not one about risks. This ambivalence about the clandestino issue also appears to have diverted these officials from science-based decision making. Government respondents provided conflicting assessments of the state of knowledge about health risks associated with clandestine operations. While they acknowledged that there had not been coordinated water quality or food safety research programs, they pointed to the existing water quality monitoring and the fact that there had been no documented cases of shellfish-related illness as indicating research was not urgently needed. Interestingly, while most of these governmental actors had scientific training, none cited epidemiological data to support their contentions about food safety or instances of food-borne illness. When asked about this gap, these actors noted tautological logic suggesting public health officials would collect these data if shellfish safety were a problem. Clandestine growing also had implications in the processing and distribution stages of mariculture. Both impact scientists and public health officials indicated that the informal nature of shellfish processing and sale made investigating contaminant and health threats difficult. While those promoting mariculture development emphasized ocean water quality when considering health threats, public health officials and impact scientists pointed to processing and handling as the stages where risks were highest. As one official stated, “Our group understands that risks to shellfish are greatest during distribution. Unfortunately, the current regulatory emphasis is on ocean water quality and not processing.”

management efforts. Finally, we found fragmentation and gaps in impact science related to post-harvest risks and public health. There was no discernible link between scientists investigating these concerns and officials involved with shellfish mariculture development. Within the public health sciences, we were unable to identify researchers focused on foodborne illness related to shellfish. Those public health scientists we did interview suggested that science related to these issues primarily occurred within governmental agencies such as the federal Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Supply (MAPA) and state and municipal public health agencies. These governmental authorities did not have fixed protocols to facilitate partnerships with university scientists to generate mission-specific science in the manner marine resource agencies did with the agronomic sciences. Staff at health and food-safety-related agencies interviewed for this study did not see this as a concern. They emphasized their own agencies' scientific capacities and the rigor of intraorganizational efforts to ensure existing science-based standards were met. However, when asked how they established their standards or identified emerging threats not covered under existing monitoring protocols, they indicated that this was not within the purview of their regulatory authority. These and other findings illustrating asymmetries in the beliefs and behaviors of production and impact scientists in Santa Catarina parallel those of other sociologists of science and highlight the cultural dimensions of scientific practice and the power of social norms in shaping scientists’ behaviors (Gieryn, 1983; Merton, 1973; Pickering, 1992). 5.3. Mariculture policies: regularized shellfish growing and the clandestine farmers Distinct norms and the culturally-driven practices of scientists clearly influenced the development of oyster and mussel farming in Santa Catarina. Nonetheless, findings from this study show that legal and regulatory structures also structured scientific engagement. Wideranging government agencies at multiple scales manage different facets of shellfish mariculture in Brazil. Their actions and inactions, along with the laws they are tasked with implementing, affected the behavior of scientists and the use of scientific expertise to inform decisionmaking. While seemingly inconsequential, interview data show that grower certification was one of the most influential factors shaping scientific engagement in mariculture in Santa Catarina. At the time of this study, the majority of oyster and mussel farmers did not have licenses to grow shellfish, nor were they certified by food safety authorities to sell their harvest. Producers without certification were colloquially known as clandestinos or clandestine growers. It is important to note that growers’ status as a clandestino reflects structural characteristics based on their lack of permits to grow and sell shellfish as well as a socially constructed identity emphasizing the informal nature of their operations. Because the establishment of the mariculture industry in Santa Catarina preceded marine zoning laws, none of the growers at the time of this study were fully regularized. Thus, the term clandestino was used primarily to identify informal growers who were not certified to process and sell shellfish. Across respondent categories, discussion of the implications of clandestine farming was widespread. Production scientists indicated that they provided technical assistance to clandestino farmers, with most suggesting that it was not their place to regulate or assess the safety of shellfish for sale. These scientists shared a belief that certification was a policy problem and that government officials were responsible for regularizing or closing these types operators, not scientists. While production scientists recognized potential risks associated with clandestine production, they did not raise concerns about whether these shellfish were safe to consume, reinforcing the shared belief that permitting was an administrative rather than public health concern.

5.4. Mariculture policies: regulatory and administrative complexity While uncertified shellfish growing had wide-ranging implications 6

Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104840

T.G. Safford, et al.

HAB management. As one government official noted, “The committee was awesome. We had no idea how to develop HAB monitoring. Growers, scientists, everyone got together thru the committee and developed the procedures, and they now work great.” The CECMB's effectiveness with HABs illustrates the potential benefits from state-sponsored collaborative forums, but there were limitations. The lack of breadth in water quality monitoring and the need for investigating new types of pathogens and chemical threats were also acknowledged by members. The committee clearly confronted one of the most pressing threats, HABs, but the inadequacy of broader pollution controls and water-related regulations point to on-going issues with the effectiveness of shellfish sanitary controls and the ability to obtain the necessary scientific data to support management. Like other scholars investigating science-based planning, results from this study show that the presence or absence of regulatory frameworks structure the interactions among scientists and science-users and influence both research and the use of data to support management (Cash et al., 2003, 2006; Ozawa, 1996; Pielke, 2007; Spruijt et al., 2014). Consistent with the sociological literature, regulatory uncertainty in Santa Catarina also appears to constrain scientists’ behavior and leads to isomorphic tendencies in both scientific practice and the use of scientific expertise by government authorities (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; Safford and Norman, 2011; Scott, 2008). Easy access to production science facilitated an emphasis on science-based marine planning, but this also appears to have diverted attention from gaps in impact science and vital laws and procedures focused on the food safety aspects of the shellfish production chain.

for scientists' involvement with development efforts, regulatory and administrative complexity was also a critical factor. Myriad local, state and federal government agencies connect to mariculture in Santa Catarina. Interview data highlight marked differences in the way respondents characterized the legal and regulatory contexts related to the marine resource and food safety aspects of shellfish growing and their effects on scientists’ behaviors and science-based decision-making. During the early phases of mariculture development, respondents indicated that scientific engagement was coordinated by EPAGRI. However, as the industry became established, additional governmental actors took on governance roles across the shellfish production chain. The practice of production science remained mostly unchanged by this evolution, but as additional government actors became involved these scientists were increasingly decoupled from aspects of mariculture that did not link to the ocean. Many noted that with so many governmental authorities involved, engaged science was difficult. “I liked it when EPAGRI coordinated all aspects of mariculture. I have good relationships there. There just is not time to partner with everyone involved now.” In instances like this, production scientists appear to have deferred to working with long-time partners at EPAGRI and marine resource agencies rather than partner with new governmental actors linked to other facets of shellfish production. Uncertainty related to the permitting of growing areas and seafood certification frustrated both scientists and science-users. However, among these structural factors, regulatory confusion in the health and seafood safety areas was noted as the most problematic by interviewees. While the federal government had a well-established food certification program (SIF), only a small number of producers in Santa Catarina participated. Certified and uncertified growers alike suggested the program was costly, burdensome, and ill-suited for shellfish. As one farmer stated, “Trying to get a SIF is ridiculous. No one explains the procedures or understands shellfish. You also must pay a big fee. When we complained, federal officials at MAPA blamed the state and vice versa. We just gave up.” Even certified growers felt the process was arbitrary and criticized the application of standards. They all noted that the use of procedures originally designed for poultry and beef, such as requiring that shellfish growers have a veterinarian on staff, as an example of baseless scientific standards. These growers chronicled the lack of expertise related to shellfish sanitary practices within federal and state food regulatory agencies. None of the mussel growers interviewed for this study received guidance on shellfish processing and many, incorrectly, suggested that since their product was sold cooked, no special handling was required. Relatedly, scientists and government officials’ shared accounts of mussels and oysters being regularly exposed to hot conditions, the use of toxic oil drums for cooking mussels, among other threats. When asked about scientific study of these risks, none of our respondents could identify such research. In Santa Catarina, monitoring shellfish at the point of sale was also limited to certified growers. Officials charged with ensuring food safety were clear in their interviews that they did not have the authority to certify the safety of shellfish illegally produced by clandestinos. These individuals also cited severe funding shortages in the health area and the urgency to address emergencies like dengue fever as constraining efforts to ensure shellfish safety. Respondents from the food safety arena did indicate they were aware that pathogenic bacteria and viruses had been found in clandestine-produced shellfish. However, because of intra-agency rules, these findings could not be disseminated or acted upon. Finally, among government respondents, there was no mention of establishing government-scientist partnerships to generate data to support shellfish safety decision-making. Imprecise laws and institutional misfits limited scientific engagement and the development of science-based regulatory standards. However, the creation of the mollusk sanitary control committee (CECMB) had the opposite effect. Growers, regulators, and scientists all suggested that this committee catalyzed science-based approaches to

6. Discussion Findings from Santa Catarina illustrate a complex array of social factors affecting mariculture-related science and the establishment of shellfish farming. Our analytical framework from institutional sociology provides a mechanism for isolating distinct normative, culturalcognitive and regulative effects on scientists’ behavior and the use of scientific expertise to inform decision-making. This type of analysis provides a roadmap for identifying social factors that may both impede and foster collaborative science-based co-management of marine resources. 6.1. Normative institutional influences Due to the highly structured nature of scientific practice, internal norms within the scientific community guide the behavior of scientists (Gieryn, 1983l; Merton, 1973; Pickering, 1992). Nonetheless, how these norms influenced different types of scientists involved with mariculture varied in meaningful ways. Production scientists were more apt than impact scientists to experiment with new methodologies, share preliminary results, and apply their findings even when encountering uncertainty. The cohesive community of practice among production scientists reinforced such flexible interpretations of method-related norms. Conversely, impact scientists more closely followed common methodological norms emphasizing replication and disinterestedness. Without social confirmation of alternative normative interpretations, impact scientists were more uneasy about applying their expertise and sharing preliminary data to supply information needed by growers and managers. Data from government officials show similar asymmetries in normative orientations regarding uncertainty and data dissemination. Individuals working in marine resource management (with production science training) emphasized experimentation and the importance of the immediate application of scientific findings. In contrast, those in the health and food safety areas (with impact science training) focused on replication and validating results prior to dissemination to avoid misinforming the public. Results from this study show that stratification in the interpretation of methodological norms and the existence of 7

Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104840

T.G. Safford, et al.

conducted laboratory-based science and had limited time in the field. Impact science culture encouraged partnering with colleagues that studied related empirical concerns rather than those who shared an interest in applied inquiry to support mariculture planning. When asked what engaged science meant to them, impact scientists nearly uniformly suggested making their findings available through databases and publications. Passive rather than active knowledge transfer was a key difference in the culturally-validated practices of impact versus production scientists. Science-users also internalized these taken-for-granted notions about how impact scientists might contribute to mariculture. Governmental actors voiced a common assumption that mariculture was principally about growing shellfish in the ocean. Thus, sciencebased development depended upon the expertise of agronomic scientists. They also suggested, that in contrast to laboratory-based impact scientists, production scientists had an affinity for, and connection to, growers because they worked in the ocean. When governmental actors were asked about how impact scientists might contribute to mariculture, they most often cited generating water quality data. None indicated collaborative scientific practice focused on broader health or environmental concerns. Growers also shared cultural assumptions about scientific engagement. Many shellfish farmers were unaware of distinctions in scientific expertise. There was a common belief that the production scientists they worked with were also studying water quality, or they concluded that the absence of this type of research meant scientists had already determined health risks were not a problem. Since advisories related to HABs were common, they also assumed this was the primary threat to mariculture. There was a culturally-validated assumption that if concerns related to other phases the production chain existed scientists or government officials would alert them. Similarly, growers collectively believed that what happened to their shellfish after they were sold was out of their control. While farmers were aware of questionable handling practices and instances of shellfish-related illness, they emphasized that none of their customers got sick. This culture of individualism and assumptions about consumers’ health belays the absence of epidemiological data or the threat wider health risks might pose to the long-term viability of the mariculture industry in Santa Catarina. Finally, growers' beliefs about technical assistance highlight the broader implications of cultural-cognitive institutional effects on the science-society interface. Because local universities supported farmers through technology transfer at little cost, growers internalized the idea that the scientific community's role was to support the development of the mariculture industry. More than any other transfer, the longstanding oyster seed distribution program solidified this common viewpoint. While small scale growers, production scientists, and government officials lauded the seed program and other technology transfers, large scale producers, who often conducted in-house science, were more critical. They suggested that other growers' dependence on these technology transfers was corrosive, arguing that it discouraged farmers from learning first-hand about the science of shellfish growing and diverted attention from food safety issues that large-scale growers identified as the key barrier to developing a sustainable mariculture industry. These patterns illustrate that the cognitive bounds of growers varied based on the scale of their operations. Like normative influences, cultural-cognitive institutions can change, but in this instance, changes occurred because of individual experiences with the practice of mariculture rather than because of collaborative interactions. While there is an extensive literature on science-based planning and the problems with disengaged science, our study points to the importance of cultural heterogeneity within the scientific community and suggests that engaged science may have different meanings and challenges across disciplines (Cash et al., 2003; Mitchell et al., 2006; Pielke, 2007; Slocombe, 1993). In Santa Catarina, production scientists prioritized direct connections with users and developed commercially valuable knowledge. However, this fostered a culture of dependence

communities of practice affect adherence to intra-science behavioral norms. Nonetheless, these findings should not suggest that impact scientists were more rigorous than their production-related colleagues. Rather, the varying normative effects illustrate how social factors can influence the relative strength of different institutional forces on the behavior of scientists. The collective belief that scientists should contribute to social wellbeing was an equally impactful normative influence. However, this belief affected scientists' behavior and the use of data in decisionmaking in asymmetrical ways. For production scientists, the social benefits of mariculture encouraged rapid knowledge transfers to assist growers. In contrast, impact scientists who recognized how their riskrelated findings might compromise growers’ livelihoods were more cautious in disseminating their results. Interestingly, this value created internal struggles for many impact scientists. On the one hand they believed scientific research could help protect the public from health risks, while on the other they did not want their findings to jeopardize an economic activity that distressed communities relied on. The extant literature has focused on how the perceived social benefits from scientific inquiry can motivate scientists to participate in natural resource management (Bäckstrand, 2003; Cash et al., 2006; Cashmore, 2004). Results from this study suggest that exploring why certain science is not produced and some scientists choose to not engage in planning efforts may offer new types of insights into the factors that might facilitate science-based natural resource co-management and highlight opportunities for broader scientific engagement (Frickel et al., 2010; Hess, 2009; Moore et al., 2011; Wuelser et al., 2012). Finally, it is important to note that social interactions can lead to changes in seemingly fixed normative institutional influences. Both members of production science research teams and impact scientists engaged with the CECMB, noted that collaborative interactions with groups of scientists and science-users led to changes in their interpretations of methodological norms. These findings from Santa Catarina confirm the importance of method-related normative institutional influences on both scientists' behavior and the use of scientific expertise in decision-making. However, more importantly, they illustrate that these institutional influences on scientists’ behavior are not static and can shift based on collaborative connections within communities of practice (McNie, 2007; Scott, 2008; Spruijt et al., 2014). 6.2. Cultural-cognitive institutional influences While not as outwardly apparent as normative institutional influences, interview data show that intra-science cultural differences led to distinct cognitive assumptions about what constitutes appropriate behaviors among impact and production scientists. One of the most important of these cultural-cognitive influences appears in divergent views about the appropriateness, necessity, and utility of engaging stakeholders in scientific practice. While the normative belief that science should benefit society was widely accepted, the necessity of interacting directly with science-users as a part of scientific practice is embedded in the culture of production scientists, but not impact scientists. These taken-for-granted beliefs about stakeholder engagement affected cognitive constructions of the appropriate social role of scientists and the use of their expertise in marine planning. Production scientists consistently engaged planners in scientific inquiry and expressed an enjoyment for field work that required interaction with growers. They also suggested that sharing their findings with users was not an option, but rather a duty. This culture of engagement was reinforced by funding agencies, resource managers, and academic institutions who incentivized applied inquiry and sciencebased decision making. Culturally established expectations within the production sciences meant that involving extension agents, planners, and growers in all phases of scientific inquiry was routine and expected. In contrast, the culture of the impact science community emphasized the value of basic science. Respondents from these fields primarily 8

Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104840

T.G. Safford, et al.

CECMB. HAB scientists were actively recruited to the committee by regulators and the development of science-based closure protocols resulted from collaboration interactions within the CECMB rather than legal requirements. Respondents stated that, unlike many regulatory processes in Brazil, the recommendations of scientists and the work of the committee, led not only to clear regulatory parameters, but also mechanisms for implementation. Finally, the issue of clandestine farming was the regulative institutional influence that most affected scientific practice and science-based decision making in Santa Catarina. While production scientists readily partnered with these growers, they also indicated that clandestinos consciously limited the information they maintained about their operations for fear of enforcement actions. This hampered engaged research, irrespective of how earnestly production scientists may have pursued such collaborations. Meanwhile the willingness of production scientists to provide oyster seed and technical assistance to uncertified producers created frustration among those growers who followed food safety guidelines. Rather than seeing them as disinterested, the fact that scientists worked with clandestinos suggested they were favoring certain types of producers over others. This created acrimony and a reluctance to partner with production scientists as well as their government supporters. Growers clandestine status also affected impact scientists' behavior, as most of these individuals did not want their findings used to justify enforcement actions. Similarly, growers’ status as clandestino affected the ability of food safety officials to collect epidemiological data or develop a systematic understanding of post-harvest concerns. Public health regulations stipulated that only certified shellfish could be tested at the point-of-sale. Thus, clandestine produced oysters and mussels remained outside of testing regimes, even though regulators recognized that these shellfish likely posed the greatest risk to public health. The variety of ways unpermitted shellfish growing affected scientific engagement illustrates the far-reaching power of regulative institutional forces. Policy misfits as well as a lack of regulatory clarity can have ripple effects on science-based decision making throughout production chains. Natural resource scholars have demonstrated the importance of laws and policies in fostering engaged science and the development of data to support decision-making (Banerjee, 2003; Cash et al., 2003; Cashmore, 2004; Subasinghe et al., 2009). However, results from this study illustrate that how and when different types of scientific research are conducted during policy processes may be equally important. Finally, while establishing science-based policies is critical, understanding how laws and regulations influence the behavior of different types of scientists and their collective involvement in planning efforts may ultimately determine the effectiveness of sciencebased co-management.

among many growers that may inhibit the long-term sustainability and viability of the mariculture industry. Similarly, this culture that prioritized engaged mariculture science appears to have led some impact scientists to believe they did not have a role in collaborative sciencebased planning processes. These types of cultural-cognitive influences not only affected scientists themselves, but also government officials and growers who shared similar cultural notions about which scientists were logical collaborators and how they should engage in mariculture development. 6.3. Regulative institutional influences With the complexity of the Brazilian state, it is unsurprising that myriad regulative institutional forces influenced the involvement of scientists and the use of their expertise to inform mariculture-related decision-making. Nonetheless, findings from this study show that these regulative effects vary among production and impact scientists and depending on the type of organization using scientific outputs. First and foremost, the segmented nature of the Brazilian bureacracy played a regulative role and affected the involvement of scientists of all types. Mariculture connects with municipal, state, and federal authorities and includes entities ranging from marine resource management agencies to public health systems. Rigid conceptions of organizational roles constrained inter-agency collaboration across areas such as environmental management, sanitation, and public health. These led to similar segmentation in their scientist partners and, in some instances, inhibited government-scientist collaboration. This was particularly the case in the food safety area where intra-agency rules constrained collaboration with marine management agencies and impact scientists. Organizational structures also created regulative influences on scientists’ behaviors. Respondents commonly believed the state extension agency, EPAGRI, served as the principle conduit for integrating science into mariculture planning. However, nearly all EPAGRI staff involved with mariculture had training in agronomy-related sciences. The prevalence of agronomists in part reflected intra-agency hiring guidelines that stipulated that applicants have degrees in certain fields. Interviewees who were familiar with EPAGRI suggested that, had there been staff with more scientifically diverse training, collaboration with impact scientists would likely have increased. Hiring rules such as these illustrate how seemingly mundane regulative institutional forces can have wide-ranging effects on scientific engagement. Respondents collectively recognized that science-based decision making would be critical for every facet of shellfish management. Nonetheless, there was uncertainty about how regulatory structures across the production chain constrained or facilitated such an approach. Most individuals pointed to science-based marine zoning as an example of effective scientist-government collaboration and science-based decision-making. Conversely, there was near consensus among respondents that existing food safety protocols and regulations were illsuited for seafood. They lamented that food safety agencies had little data about shellfish physiology or pathogens specific to these organisms. While laws, such as the one mandating veterinarian oversight of shellfish processing, appear to promote science-based decision-making, food safety regulations defined scientific engagement based on disciplinary training rather than issue-specific expertise. When asked about gaps in food safety information, neither growers nor municipal, state, or federal food safety officials could cite examples where the scientific community was developing engaged research focused on seafood-related risks. They pointed to the lack of clarity in food laws and the rigidity of regulatory structures as constraining this type of scientific collaboration. Nonetheless, ineffective agency rules did not always lead to inertia in scientific engagement. Unclear shellfish regulations and recognition of the need for science-informed rules were impetuses for forming the

7. Conclusion With the increasing emphasis on expanding aquaculture to spur development and increase food security, investigating the social forces that influence scientists' engagement in aquaculture planning and management is of global importance (Bostock et al., 2010; FAO, 2016; Goldburg, 2008; Klinger and Naylor, 2012; Subasinghe et al., 2009). Like many countries, Brazil has seemingly propitious conditions for mariculture and has embarked on ambitious science-based development efforts. Scientists' involvement in mariculture planning in Santa Catarina demonstrates the pivotal role they can play in guiding development and supporting decision-making. However, asymmetries in scientific engagement across the production and impact sciences also raise questions about the industry's resilience and its vulnerability to health and environmental threats. While these findings may seem contradictory, they also suggest that collaborative science-based approaches that promote co-management and broad participation among scientists and science-users may lead to the outcomes imagined for sustainable mariculture. 9

Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104840

T.G. Safford, et al.

begin with considering how current scientific inquiry and scientists’ involvement in development efforts advances or does not advance resilient and synergistic approaches to coastal planning. By encouraging this type of reflection, scientists and science-users can help promote more inclusive development paradigms that draw upon wide-ranging scientific expertise to ensure the broadest social value. Finally, sociologists have unique scientific skills and need to be more engaged in analyzing and informing science-based co-management efforts. Full engagement of natural, physical, and social scientists will likely help practitioners and the communities they support achieve the outcomes imagined from socially and ecologically sustainable coastal development.

While this project focused on scientists’ engagement with shellfish farming in Santa Catarina, it also offers broader insights into the science-development interface. Science-based approaches have become the dominant paradigm in the development community (Bäckstrand, 2003; Cashmore, 2004; Costa-Pierce, 2008; Spruijt et al., 2014; Van Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2006). Nonetheless, this study shows that the way scientists engage in planning processes reflect the complex social and institutional contexts in which they work. Sociologists have long studied scientific inquiry as a social practice. Conceptual tools from institutional sociology and the sociology of science offer helpful frameworks for guiding further inquiry into the role of scientists in coastal development and the ever-changing social dimensions of marine planning. Finally, expanding upon findings from this study, we highlight three key factors that scientists and practitioners may want to consider as they move forward with collaborative science-based marine management endeavors. 1) Science is not singular. References to science-based, science-tomanagement, trust-in-science, among others are ubiquitous in the natural resources' literature. Utilizing the term as singular suggests simplicity and masks marked differences in disciplines and scientific practices. Sociologists have shown that oversimplification of what science is or what results mean, while seeming to increase the accessibility of complicated findings, can erode science's authority as well as confidence in science-based decisions (Gieryn, 1983; Merton, 1973; Pickering, 1992; Wynne, 2016). Highlighting scientific complexity may create challenges and reservations among some scientists and scienceusers, however, failing to consider this complexity can discourage the integration of the diverse scientific expertise that is essential to the success of sustainable coastal development. Most importantly this study's finding show that collaborative interactions encourage consideration of how myriad types of data could be applied to provide the foundation for science-based co-management of natural resources. 2) Scientists are social actors. The validity of all science is predicated on scientists adhering to norms focused on methodological precision. However, results from this project illustrate that other socially constructed norms and cultural attributes within the scientific community are equally influential in shaping the behaviors of scientists. In addition, science-users’ confidence in both data and decisions based on scientific findings may hinge as much on their views of scientists as individuals as their assessment of the methodological rigor of particular studies. Communalism is a core value of science and bonds among scientists, as well as with science-users, are critical for scientific practice (Merton, 1973). Scientists’ training prepares them to occupy the social status of “scientist,” but how individuals enact the various roles associated with being a scientist is influenced by wide-ranging social forces. Sociological analysis of institutional effects can provide mechanisms for better understanding scientists as social actors and identifying systematic patterns of behavior. Conducting this type of social science inquiry could help coastal planners and managers diagnose asymmetries in institutional effects on scientists and science-users and develop strategies to support more effective collaborative science-based decision-making (Safford and Norman, 2011; Scott, 2008). 3) The meaning of development is not universal. Like science, the meaning of development is multi-dimensional and contested. Current techno-scientific development often reifies a production-centric paradigm that fails to consider that activities like shellfish farming are fundamentally social practices. Scientific engagement may need to be more adaptive and reflexive. Across production chains, developmentrelated science is embedded in complex social relations. Similar to the findings of other social researchers, our study suggests that scientists and science-users need to reflect on how science is practiced and what role scientists should play in ensuring that development is inclusive and sustainable (Bäckstrand, 2003; McNie, 2007; Ozawa, 1996; Pielke, 2007; Rudd, 2014; Spruijt et al., 2014; Young et al., 2014). Recognizing the value of collaboration and the importance of reflexivity could be key first steps towards this goal. Such efforts could

Role of the funding source This work was supported by a grant from the USIA Fulbright Program and funding from the University of New Hampshire, College of Liberal Arts. Conflicts of interest All authors: “Conflicts of interest: none”. Acknowledgements The authors would like recognize Jacqueline Prudêncio for her invaluable assistance with interview planning and the development of map resources, and Kristine Bundschuh for her assistance with bibliographic information. Finally, we are grateful to all the interviewees in Santa Catarina who generously gave of their time and insights to support this project. References Bäckstrand, K., 2003. Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Politics 3 (4), 24–41. Banerjee, S.B., 2003. Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organ. Stud. 24 (1), 143–180. Bitektine, A., 2008. Prospective case study design: qualitative method for deductive theory testing. Organ. Res. Methods 11 (1), 160–180. Bonetti, C., Bonetti, J., Barcelos, R.L., 2007. Caracterização sedimentar e geoquímica de sistemas costeiros com ênfase na avaliação da influência de sítios de cultivo de moluscos. Barroso, G. F, L. H. da Silva Poersch, & R. O. Cavalli. (Orgs.) Sistemas de cultivos aqüícolas na zona costeira do Brasil: recursos, tecnologias, aspectos ambientais e sócio-econômicos (Série Livros 26, 87). UFRJ. Rio de Janeiro. Barroso, G.F., Poersch, L.H.S., Cavalli, R.O., 2007. Premissas Para a Sustentabilidade da Aquicultura Costeira. In: Barroso, G.F., da Silva Poersch, L.H., Cavalli, R.O. (Eds.), Sistemas de cultivos aqüícolas na zona costeira do Brasil: recursos, tecnologias, aspectos ambientais e sócio-econômicos (Série Livros 26, 87). UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro. Bostock, J., McAndrew, B., Richards, R., Jauncey, K., Telfer, T., Lorenzen, K., et al., 2010. Aquaculture: global status and trends. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365 (1554), 2897–2912. Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., et al., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 100 (14), 8086–8091. Cash, D.W., Borck, J.C., Patt, A.G., 2006. Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making: comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 31 (4), 465–494. Cashmore, M., 2004. The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 24 (4), 403–426. Coelho, C., Heinert, A.P., Simões, C.M.O., Barardi, C.R.M., 2003. Hepatitis A virus detection in oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in Santa Catarina state, Brazil, by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction. J. Food Prot. 66 (3), 507–511. Cole, D.W., Cole, R., Gaydos, S.J., Gray, J., Hyland, G., Jacques, M.L., Powell-Dunford, N., Sawhney, C., Au, W.W., 2009. Aquaculture: environmental, toxicological, and health issues. Int. J. Hyg Environ. Health 212 (4), 369–377. Costa-Pierce, B.A. (Ed.), 2008. Ecological Aquaculture: the Evolution of the Blue Revolution. John Wiley & Sons, New York. de Andrade, G.J.P.O., 2016. Maricultura em Santa Catarina: a cadeia produtiva gerada pelo esforço coordenado de pesquisa, extensão e desenvolvimento tecnólogico. Extensio Rev. Eletrônica Extensão 13 (24), 204–217. Diegues, A.C., 2006. Para uma Aquicultura Sustentável Do Brasil. Banco Mundial/FAO, São Paulo.

10

Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104840

T.G. Safford, et al.

brasiliana exposed in situ to urban effluents, Florianópolis Bay, Southern Brazil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 131, 172–180. Pickering, A. (Ed.), 1992. Science as Practice and Culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pielke, R.A., 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pillay, T.V.R., Kutty, M.N., 2005. Aquaculture: Principles and Practices, second ed. Blackwell Publishing. Poli, C.R., 2004. Cultivo de ostras do Pacífico (Crassostrea gigas, 1852). In: Beltrame, E., Poli, C., Poli, A., Andretta, E. (Eds.), Aquicultura Experiências Brasileiras. Florianópolis. Multitarefa Editora Ltda. Proença, L.A.O., Tamanaha, M.S., Souza, N.P., 2001. The toxic dinoflagellate Gymnodinium catenatum Graham in southern Brazilian waters: occurrence, pigments and toxins. Atlantica 23, 59–65. Proença, L.A.O., 2006. Algal blooms in coastal zones: examples of harmful impacts from the Brazilian coast. J. Coast. Res. 76–78. Ramos, R.J., Miotto, L.A., Miotto, M., Silveira Junior, N., Cirolini, A., Silva, H.S.D., Vieira, C.R.W., 2014. Occurrence of potentially pathogenic Vibrio in oysters (Crassostrea gigas) and waters from bivalve mollusk cultivations in the South Bay of Santa Catarina. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 47 (3), 327–333. Rigotto, C., Victoria, M., Moresco, V., Kolesnikovas, C.K., Corrêa, A.A., Souza, D.S.M., Barardi, C.R.M., 2010. Assessment of adenovirus, hepatitis A virus and rotavirus presence in environmental samples in Florianopolis, South Brazil. J. Appl. Microbiol. 109 (6), 1979–1987. Rodrigues, A.M.T.R., 2007. Diagnóstico da malacocultura catarinense em apoio à gestão costeira: Subsídios ao zoneamento da atividade, ordenamento pesqueiro, licenciamento ambiental e a autorização de uso do espaço físico marinho em águas de domínio da União. Tese de Doutora do Programa de Pós-Graduação Stricto-Sensu em Engenharia Ambiental. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Florianópolis. Rodrigues, A.M.T., Matias, W.G., Polette, M., Occhialini, D.S., Micheletti, E.L., Dalbosco, R., 2010. A evolução da ocupação do espaço marinho do litoral catarinense pela malacocultura (1995-2005). Revista CEPSUL-Biodiversidade e Conservação Marinha 1 (1), 18–28. Rodrigues, L.S., Cavalcanti, I.M., Capanema, L.X.D.L., Morch, R.B., Magalhães, G., Lima, J.F., et al., 2012. Panorama da aquicultura no Brasil: desafios e oportunidades. BNDES Setorial 35, 421–463. Rudd, M.A., 2014. Scientists' perspectives on global ocean research priorities. Frontiers in Marine Science 1, 36. Rudorff, N.D.M., Bonetti, C.V.D.H.C., Bonetti Filho, J., 2012. Suspended shellfish culture impacts on the benthic layer: a case study in Brazilian subtropical waters. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 60 (2), 219–232. Sáenz, L.A., Seibert, E.L., Zanette, J., Fiedler, H.D., Curtius, A.J., Ferreira, J.F., et al., 2010. Biochemical biomarkers and metals in Perna perna mussels from mariculture zones of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 73 (5), 796–804. Safford, T.G., Norman, K.C., 2011. Planning salmon recovery: applying sociological concepts to spawn new organizational insights. Soc. Nat. Resour. 24 (7), 751–766. Santa Catarina (Estado), 2010. Institui O Comitê Estadual de Controle Higiênico Sanitário de Moluscos Bivalves – CECMB. Portaria nº 24, de 21 de dezembro de 2010. Florianópolis. Scott, W.R., 2008. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Sidonio, L., Cavalcanti, I., Capanema, L., Morch, R., Magalhães, G., Lima, J., et al., 2012. Panorama da aquicultura no Brasil: desafios e oportunidades. BNDES Setorial 35, 421–463. Slocombe, D.S., 1993. Environmental planning, ecosystem science, and ecosystem approaches for integrating environment and development. Environ. Manag. 17 (3), 289–303. Souza, D.S.M., Ramos, A.P.D., Nunes, F.F., Moresco, V., Taniguchi, S., Leal, D.A.G., et al., 2012. Evaluation of tropical water sources and mollusks in southern Brazil using microbiological, biochemical, and chemical parameters. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 76, 153–161. Spruijt, P., Knol, A.B., Vasileiadou, E., Devilee, J., Lebret, E., Petersen, A.C., 2014. Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: a literature review. Environ. Sci. Policy 40, 16–25. Subasinghe, R., Soto, D., Jia, J., 2009. Global aquaculture and its role in sustainable development. Rev. Aquacult. 1 (1), 2–9. Suplicy, F.M., Vianna, L.F.D.N., Rupp, G.S., Novaes, A.L., Garbossa, L.H., de Souza, R.V., et al., 2017. Planning and management for sustainable coastal aquaculture development in Santa Catarina State, south Brazil. Rev. Aquacult. 9 (2), 107–124. Tureck, C.R., Oliveira, T.D., 2003. Sustentabilidade ambiental e maricultura. Revista Saúde e Ambiente Joinville 4 (2), 22–26. Trochim, W.M., 2000. The Research Methods Knowledge Base. Atomic Dog Publications, Cincinnati. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2016. State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. FAO, Rome. Valenti, C.W., Poli, C.R., Pereira, J.A., Borghetti, J.R., 2000. Aquicultura no Brasil: bases para um desenvolvimento sustentável. CNPQ/Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia, Brasília. Van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L., 2006. Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31. Vianna, L.F.D.N., Bonetti, J., Polette, M., 2012. Gestão costeira integrada: análise da compatibilidade entre os instrumentos de uma política pública para o desenvolvimento da maricultura e um plano de gerenciamento costeiro no Brasil. Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada 12 (3), 357–372. Vianna, L.F.D.N., Bonetti Filho, J., 2018. Spatial analysis for site selection in marine aquaculture: an ecosystem approach applied to Baía Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Aquaculture 489, 162–174.

DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W. (Eds.), 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuarária de Extensão Rural de Santa Catarina (EPAGRI), 2015. Plan estratégico para o Desenvolvimento Sustanetável de Mariculture Catarinese (2015-2020). EPAGRI. Florianópolis. Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuarária de Extensão Rural de Santa Catarina (EPAGRI), 2016. Síntese Informativa da Maricultura 2015. EPAGRI. Florianópolis. Ferreira, J.F., de Oliveira Neto, F.M., 2007. Cultivo de Moluscos em Santa Catarina. In: Barroso, G.F., da Silva Poersch, L.H., Cavalli, R.O. (Eds.), Sistemas de cultivos aqüícolas na zona costeira do Brasil: recursos, tecnologias, aspectos ambientais e sócio-econômicos (Série Livros 26, 87). UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro. Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G., Hess, D.J., 2010. Undone science: charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 35 (4), 444–473. Garbossa, L.H., Souza, R.V., Campos, C.J., Vanz, A., Vianna, L.F., Rupp, G.S., 2017. Thermotolerant coliform loadings to coastal areas of Santa Catarina (Brazil) evidence the effect of growing urbanisation and insufficient provision of sewerage infrastructure. Environ. Monit. Assess. 189 (1), 27. Gieryn, T.F., 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev. 781–795. Goldburg, R.J., 2008. Aquaculture, trade, and fisheries linkages: unexpected synergies. Globalizations 5 (2), 183–194. Haas, P.M., 2017. Coupling science to governance: straddling the science-policy interface. In: Littoz-Monnet, A. (Ed.), The Politics of Expertise in International Organizations. Routledge, London. Harvey, B., Soto, D., Carolsfeld, J., Beveridge, M., Bartley, D.M., 2016. Planning for aquaculture diversification: the importance of climate change and other drivers. In: FAO Technical Workshop – 23-23 June 2016. FAO, Rome. Hess, D.J., 2009. The potentials and limitations of civil society research: getting undone science done. Socio. Inq. 79 (3), 306–327. Hessels, L.K., Van Lente, H., 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda. Res. Pol. 37, 740–760. Jacomel, B., Campos, L.M.D.S., 2014. Produção sustentável e controlada de ostras: ações em Santa Catarina (Brasil) rumo aos padrões internacionais de comercialização. Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada 14 (3), 501–515. Klinger, D., Naylor, R., 2012. Searching for solutions in aquaculture: charting a sustainable course. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 247–276. Lins, H.N., 2006. Sistemas agroalimentares localizados: possível" chave de leitura" sobre a maricultura em Santa Catarina. Rev. Econ. e Soc. Rural 44 (2), 313–330. Lins, H.N., 2010. Interações entre universidade e tecido produtivo: experiências em atividades tradicionais de Santa Catarina. Rev. Econ. 36 (3). Manzoni, G.C., 2005. Cultivo de mexilhões Perna perna: evolução da atividade no Brasil e avaliação econômica da realidade de Santa Catarina. Tese de Doutorado-UNESP, São Paulo. Marenzi, A.W., Branco, J.O., 2006. O cultivo do mexilhão Perna perna no município de Penha, SC. Bases ecológicas para um desenvolvimento sustentável: estudos de caso em Penha, SC 291, 227–244. McIntyre, B.D., 2009. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). World Bank, Washington, D.C. McNie, E.C., 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ. Sci. Policy 10 (1), 17–38. Mello, D.F., Danielli, N.M., Curbani, F., Pontinha, V.A., Suhnel, S., Castro, M.A.M., Dafre, A.L., 2018. First evidence of viral and bacterial oyster pathogens in the Brazilian coast. J. Fish Dis. 41 (3), 559. Merton, R.K., 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Ministério de Pesca e Aquicultura – Governo do Brasil (MPA, 2014. 1° Anuário Brasileiro da Pesca e Aquicultura. MPA, Brasilia. Ministério de Pesca e Aquicultura – Governo do Brasil (MPA, 2015. Plano de Desenvolvimento da Aquicultura Brasileira – 2015/2020. MPA, Brasília. Mitchell, R.B., Clark, W.C., Cash, D.W., Dickson, N.M. (Eds.), 2006. Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence. MIT Press, Cambridge. Monteiro, M., Rajão, R., 2017. Scientists as citizens and knowers in the detection of deforestation in the Amazon. Soc. Stud. Sci. 47 (4), 466–484. Moore, K., Kleinman, D.L., Hess, D., Frickel, S., 2011. Science and neoliberal globalization: a political sociological approach. Theor. Soc. 40 (5), 505–532. Moresco, V., Viancelli, A., Nascimento, M.A., Souza, D.S.M., Ramos, A.P.D., Garcia, L.A.T., Barardi, C.R.M., 2012. Microbiological and physicochemical analysis of the coastal waters of southern Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64 (1), 40–48. Norman, K.C., Safford, T.G., Feist, B.E., Henly, M., 2016. At the confluence of data streams: mapping paired social and biophysical landscapes on the Puget Sound's edge. Coast. Manag. 44 (5), 427–440. Novaes, A.L.T., Vianna, L.D.N., Santos, A.D., Silva, F.M., Souza, R.D., 2011. Regularização da atividade de maricultura no Estado de Santa Catarina. Agropecuária Catarinense 24 (1), 51–53. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M., Scott, P.B., 2001. Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity, Cambridge. Ozawa, C.P., 1996. Science in environmental conflicts. Socio. Perspect. 39 (2), 219–230. Paulilo, M.I.S., 2002. Maricultura e território em Santa Catarina-Brasil. Geosul 17 (34), 87–112. Pereira, L.A., Rocha, R.M.D., 2015. A maricultura e as bases econômica, social e ambiental que determinam seu desenvolvimento e sustentabilidade. Ambiente Sociedade 18 (3), 41–54. Pessatti, T.B., Lüchmann, K.H., Flores-Nunes, F., Mattos, J.J., Sasaki, S.T., Taniguchi, S., et al., 2016. Upregulation of biotransformation genes in gills of oyster Crassostrea

11

Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104840

T.G. Safford, et al.

Yin, R.K., 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Young, J.C., Waylen, K.A., Sarkki, S., Albon, S., Bainbridge, I., Balian, E., et al., 2014. Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers. Conserv. 23 (2), 387–404.

Wuelser, G., Pohl, C., Hadorn, G.H., 2012. Structuring complexity for tailoring research contributions to sustainable development: a framework. Sustainability Science 7 (1), 81–93. Wynne, B., 2016. Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Publ. Understand. Sci. 1, 281–304.

12