Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2010 The Coral Reef Environmental "Crisis": Negotiating Knowledge in Scientific Uncertainty and Geographic Difference Ba#rbel G. Bischof

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & PUBLIC POLICY

THE CORAL REEF ENVIRONMENTAL “CRISIS”: NEGOTIATING KNOWLEDGE IN SCIENTIFIC

UNCERTAINTY AND GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCE

By

BÄRBEL G. BISCHOF

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Geography in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2010

i The members of the committee approve the dissertation of Bärbel G. Bischof, defended on May 7, 2010.

______Philip E. Steinberg Professor Directing Dissertation

______Ronald E. Doel University Representative

______James B. Elsner Committee Member

______Xiaojun Yang Committee Member

Approved:

______Victor Mesev, Chair, Department of Geography

______David W. Rasmussen, Dean, College of Social Sciences & Public Policy

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members.

ii I dedicate this to all of those who commit themselves towards conserving our natural environments, especially those of our oceans.

Ultimately, this is for my three noodles, Sienne, Keah, and Zalynn, for whom I want a better world, one that when they are grown, still harbors the ocean’s beauty and wonder that I have been fortunate enough to behold.

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to thank the U.S. National Science Foundation, which awarded me the Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant in 2008 (BCS-0825623) and therewith allowed me to have the freedom to complete my work from my field site in South Florida’s coral reef environments. Also, many thanks to the FSU Department of Geography faculty and staff for their assistance and support in helping me reach my goal, particularly to Victor Mesev, Christina Dippre and Shawn Lewers. Many thanks also to respondents of my survey without whom I obviously would have been quite stuck. I am fully aware of the mental energy I requested of them to complete the Q-sorts, and sincerely appreciate those who had the depth and vision to understand my goals and the respect my efforts. Thanks to those who took the time to provide valuable feedback, particularly those who I know did not have much time to spare, given the demands made of them as leading reef scientists and management professionals. I would like to extend extra-special thanks to my dissertation advisor Phil Steinberg, for accepting me as his student, and his attention to my interests, his mentorship, his openness to my crazy ideas, and for his always-impressive articulation of philosophical issues that gave me brain-freeze when attempting to understand them on my own. Without a doubt, truly the best dissertation advisor anyone could hope for. And also extra-special thanks to Jim Elsner for his practical contributions and skill with “R” and writing and correcting the R-code that put my ideas into action; but also, and maybe more importantly, his willingness to listen to my concerns and his constant encouragement and confidence in me when my own sometimes faltered. I’d also like to thank Ron Doel and Xiaojun Yang for their willingness to serve on my committee and their valuable comments and feedback. Ben Clark in the College of Social Science Dean’s office deserves credit for his time and skill in setting up the online Q-sort surveys, and fixing the .html code to adapt it to my needs and make it work as it should. Also, to Jack Tyndall in the Graduate School, for his patience and help in navigating through the administrative hurdles. I would also like to thank Bruce Stiftel, now at Georgia Tech, for his early participation as committee member, and always sound advice and sobering analyses of my assessments regarding marine management planning and policy analysis. To one of my greatest inspirations and heros, Robert N. Ginsburg, once my MSc. committee member and mentor at UM/RSMAS, and now good friend and reef-exploring companion. He is among the very few who understood my steadfast motivations and goals. It was his doing that I became so deeply involved with coral reef issues and tropical marine environments, and where I began to see the marine system beyond a purely “material” and “natural” space. His constant questioning (his infamous “so what?”) and his awareness and openness to the socio-political aspect of reef conservation, despite his own focus on natural sciences, allowed me to understand this environment from a wide range of perspectives and be able to engage in the necessary critical thinking that first clued me into the sociological and philosophical aspects of science. He was among the few who emphasized the

iv importance of connection, not only of the environment, but of knowledge, its power, and its effects. His support, teachings, and honest friendship have furthered me beyond anything I could have achieved without him. Great thanks to the trusty Rock Star, the 32-foot, 1968 Bertram that safely took us on those many trips to “our” reefs for so many years, and brought us back safely from those adventures we did not anticipate. I would also like to thank my mother, for her support and financial backing when I was counting pennies and scrounging for change under my furniture and car seats, or looking around for something to sell on eBay to make ends meet; to my sister for being a fantastic sounding-board and just simply an awesome sister, as well as Bryan Rodwell for being a loving husband and father to her family, and a good friend to me. To both of my parents for forcing me to retain my bi-lingual abilities as a child, which has come in handy more than once, and for supporting my wild adventures even though they may not have always understood what I was doing, or why. My father deserves thanks for the opportunities he has provided me throughout my life to travel and see the corners of the world we explored together. And, to “my girls,” my precious, beautiful nieces, who when moments got hard and frustrating, made me smile in my heart and gave me the necessary strength to carry on by reminding me why I was doing this. To my “academic friends” just for putting up with me as I rode the roller-coaster of emotions and mood-swings an endeavor such as this imposes, especially to Heather Gamper and Andres Platta-Strappa for their friendship, and for always welcoming me in their home when I needed a warm (and cool) place to stay in Tallahassee, and to Celeste and Dookie who let me share their space. To Mrs. Julie Cliff, Wando High School marine science teacher who lit the spark that started me down the marine science road; to Dr. Arthur Mariano, RSMAS scientist and friend whose sword-fishing trips not only allowed me to see some of the most awesome nature out there, but also clued me into aspects of the political ecology of fisheries and engaged my critical thinking in aspects of recreational and commercial fisheries; to Nick Onuf whose constructivist teachings, encouragement and conversations about science helped me understand how to converge my diverse background, and how to organize my critical thinking and attach it to theory, society, and the intersection of environment, politics and international law. I feel lucky to have been able to be among his students. To my kiter-buddies for helping me retain some sanity and become a kitesurfing fool, especially to Jaaz Bousquet, Juan Herrera, Muriel Vandenbempt, and the S. Florida and Chucktown crews. The times we had together on and off the water still rank among the best in my life. And to my enduring friends, the people that have stuck by me: David Brown, Marion Krause, Mita Saksena, Astrid Ellie Hurley, Terri-Ky Ross Rand among so many others. The gratitude and love I feel for the people in my life who have chosen me as I have chosen them is beyond words. In my mind, all people who enter our lives are important in some way, even if they only remain there for short measures –– they all leave a trace. Seven years in New York City, four of which in Harlem quite a few years before Billy, Starbucks and McDonald’s moved in, taught me that sometimes even the briefest encounters can affect one in ways that only later become evident. To those fleeting associations and encounters, even the ones that were quite awful or that scared the living hell out of me, I also owe some appreciation, as they have had some influence on my convictions and motivations, and taught me about myself and helped me organize the world we live in.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES...... x

ABSTRACT...... xi

1. PROJECT OVERVIEW & THEORETICAL BACKGROUND...... 1

1.1 Introduction...... 1

1.2 Research Objectives...... 4

1.3 Theoretical Foundations...... 6

1.3.1 Science as a Social Process and Constructed Knowledges...... 6

1.3.2 Geographies of Science: Situated Knowledges or Place Matters...... 13

1.3.3 Marine Geography: Ocean Space, Representations, and Reef-Rich Places...... 21

1.4 Case Examples...... 30

1.4.1 Hurricanes: “Good” or “Bad” for Reefs?...... 31

1.4.2 Cold Stress Bleaching Event, South Florida, January 2010...... 34

2. CORAL REEFS: ECOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHIES...... 36

2.1 Coral Ecology...... 37

2.2 Reef Growth and Environmental Connections...... 39

2.3 Biogeography of Reefs...... 41

2.4 Ecological Stressors and Monitoring...... 44

2.5 Ecosystem Services...... 52

2.6 Reef Restoration and Resource Investments...... 54

3. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE CORAL REEF ENVIRONMENTAL “CRISIS”...... 57

3.1 The Current State of Coral Reef Environmental Crisis...... 57

3.2 Geographic Settings: Material and Political Contexts of Reef Environments...... 61

3.3 Early Social Contexts: Roots of Consequence, Necessity & Development...... 63

3.4 “Naturalist” Origins of Reef Knowledge...... 66

vi 3.5 Historical Scientific Traces and Public Emergence of Reefs...... 67

3.6 The Making of a Baseline...... 68

3.7 Marine Protected Areas: A Framework for Territorial and Geopolitical Control...... 70

3.8 The Present: Urgency, Failure and Crisis...... 72

3.9 The Epistemic Community of Coral Reef Professionals...... 74

4. RESEARCH METHOD & DESIGN...... 76

4.1 The Theoretical Underpinnings of Q-Methodology...... 76

4.1.1 The Structure of Subjectivities...... 77

4.1.2 How Q Works...... 79

4.1.3 Q-Methodology and Scientific Truth-Claims...... 80

4.2 Research Questions & Design...... 81

4.2.1 Concourse Sources...... 82

4.2.2 The Statement Topics...... 83

4.2.3 Statement Sampling...... 84

4.2.4 The Survey Instrument: The Q-Sort Matrix...... 86

4.2.5 The Respondents: The P-Set...... 87

4.2.6 Gathering Data: Flash Q...... 89

4.2.7 Statistical Applications...... 89

4.2.8 Determining the Number of Factors...... 89

5. RESULTS & DISCUSSION...... 91

5.1 Results: Science Survey...... 92

5.1.1 Factor 1: Gaian Communalists...... 94

5.1.2 Factor 2: Science-Oriented Pessimists...... 97

5.1.3 Factor 3: Locally-Oriented Positivists...... 100

5.1.4 Contention and Consensus...... 102

5.2 Results: Management Survey...... 106

5.2.1 Factor 1: Community-Centered Humanists...... 108

5.2.2 Factor 2: Scientific Idealists...... 111

vii 5.2.3 Factor 3: Skeptical Utilitarianists...... 114

5.2.4 Factor 4: Political Reformists...... 117

5.2.5 Contention and Consensus...... 120

5.3 Discussion: Attitudes, Viewpoints and Perceptions...... 124

5.3.1 Science Issues...... 124

5.3.2 Management Issues...... 126

5.4 Discussion: Consensus and Priorities...... 128

5.4.1 Science Issues...... 128

5.4.2 Management Issues...... 130

6. CONCLUSIONS...... 131

6.1 Subjectivities and Science...... 131

6.2 Marine Geographies and Science...... 136

6.3 Geographic Influences in Environmental Conservation...... 142

6.4 Applying Q-Methodology in Environmental Knowledge...... 143

APPENDIX...... 148

A.1 Program Application: Applying “R” to Q-studies...... 148

A.2 Screenshot of the Q-sort Matrix Using the Flash-Q Software Program...... 149

A.3 Human Subjects Committee Internal Review Board Approval Letter...... 150

REFERENCES...... 151

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...... 169

viii LIST OF TABLES

4.1 The Q-sort structure...... 87

5.1 Science Survey Factor Rankings...... 92

5.2 Science Survey Factor 1...... 94

5.3 Science Survey Factor 2...... 97

5.4 Science Survey Factor 3...... 100

5.5 Science Survey Factors and Consensus...... 103

5.6 Management Survey Factor Rankings...... 106

5.7 Management Survey Factor 1...... 109

5.8 Management Survey Factor 2...... 112

5.9 Management Survey Factor 3...... 114

5.10 Management Survey Factor 4...... 117

5.11 Management Survey Factors and Consensus...... 120

5.12 Summary: Science Survey Factor Attributes...... 125

5.13 Summary: Management Survey Factor Attributes...... 127

5.14 Priority and Consensus of Scientific Issues...... 129

5.15 Priority and Consensus of Management Issues...... 130

ix LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Damaged Reefs...... 32

1.2 Coral Recovery...... 33

2.1 Location of Coral Reefs...... 36

2.2. A Close-up of a Coral Colony...... 37

2.3 Bleaching in Coral...... 38

2.4 Important Reef Herbivores...... 40

2.5 Reef Morphologies...... 40

2.6 Biogeographic Regions of Reefs...... 42

2.7 Marine Pollution...... 44

2.8 Reef Degradation...... 46

2.9 Jamaican Conch Fisherman...... 48

2.10 Reef Surveying...... 52

2.11 Coral Transplanting...... 55

4.1 The Structure of Subjectivity...... 77

6.1 Jules’ Undersea Lodge...... 137

6.2 Palm Jumeirah...... 138

A.2 Screenshot of Q-sort Matrix...... 148

x ABSTRACT

! Coral reefs have been increasingly reported as ecosystems in severe “crisis” and decline, with estimates of irreparably damaged reefs to be around 54%, and possible losses of 15-20% more over the next half-century. The urgency to mitigate these declines has increased in recent years as the effects of global climate change have become apparent alongside steadily increasing population pressures in coastal communities. However, management efforts are generally paralyzed by a variety of competing discourses regarding these ecosystems, in part because of a general lack of consensus about which environmental mitigation measures to take and across which geographic scales they must be implemented. The inaction that results by normative scientific debate is not because of a lack of scientific information and knowledge, but rather can be directly attributed to 1) an over-emphasis of scientific uncertainty about the environment and mitigation suggestions, 2) a wide range of interpretations, preferences and assumptions regarding both human and physical geographic differences between reef environments and across regions, and 3) the inherent challenges posed by conducting science in the marine environment. The manner in which truth-claims are accepted as dominant paradigms therefore is not a disembodied and de-located objective process, but rather contingent on how individuals––in this case, coral reef scientists and professionals––generate and preference truth-claims, and the manner in which these claims are internalized and expressed in the epistemic community as fact and subsequently filter into associated socio-political networks. This work applied Q-methodology, a mixed method that can characterize human subjectivity, to find and rank consensus on scientific and management discourses in coral reef environmental issues. Statements were generated from peer-reviewed publications and grey literatures, conferences and conversations with those in the epistemic community, and surveys were developed and made available on the web through Flash-Q. Two surveys were devised: the first consisting of 36 statements regarding scientific issues, and the second consisting of 43 statements that dealt with management discourses. Three factors or “attitudes” (Gaian Communalists, Science-oriented Pessimists; Locally-oriented Positivists) inherent in the community were isolated in the science survey, and four (Community-centered Humanists; Scientific Idealists; Skeptic Utilitarianists; Political Reformists) in the management survey. Queried discourses were then ranked and organized by their levels of agreement and intensity of perceived priority. The greatest disagreement within scientific discourses involved assumptions about the effects and proposed management actions that should be taken in the context of global climate change, and whether these systems were experiencing species shifts or an extinction event. The most consensus regarding scientific issues was in support of imposing harsher use-regulations, clarifying the effects of fishing activities, and better understanding cultural patterns of reef use. For the management survey, there was less agreement overall, with the greatest disagreement regarding estimations of the global

xi feedback systems and how they influence the success of reef management, and the apparent effects of regional connectivity and its relationship to reef resilience within MPAs. The greatest agreement emphasized the importance of understanding local community use-patterns for marine protected areas (MPAs) to be effective and that severely restricting subsistence and artisenal fishing would not lead to better conservation. This work provides evidence that one can quantitatively approach some measure of consilience by sorting the muddled uncertainties and ranking equally-emphasized issues of urgency regarding environmental conservation discourses, which most often lead to policy-inaction. Through this method, one can identify priorities that are based on consensual views held by respondents and provide a diplomatic route of negotiating policies based on the apparent attitudes that are prevalent and can be expected to exist within the epistemic community. Additionally, this work provides greater insight on the particular influences of scientific and management assertions, both within and outside of the epistemic networks that generate them. This study affirms how place (and space) is attached to discourses regarding scientific findings and conclusions about reef systems, and provides a tactic to confidently apply management strategies across a range of contexts and the variety of environments, polities and geographies inhabited by reef systems.

xii 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW & THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The sea, the great unifier, is man’s only hope. Now, as never before, the old phrase has a literal meaning: we are all in the same boat. ––Jacques-Yves Cousteau ❦❧❦ ❧❦

Environmental conservation efforts in the face of current global change have become issues that are increasingly visible in general media and have spawned heated public debate that highlights uncertainty and implications of inefficiencies in science. Issues that comprise talking-points of environmental discourses are dominated by what to do about the degrading environment in the present atmosphere of rapid and inequitable development of Third World [sic] countries, population growth, rapid climate change, and economic disparities. As such, environmental discourses have also become increasingly controversial as they have seeped out of the networks that are traditionally considered “environmentalist” and into political and economic arenas, as the associated political and financial risks involved in mitigation efforts and policy formation are realized and dissected. The pattern of social engagement within contentious ideologies about the environment, such as is currently happening in climate change, demonstrate the quagmire that inevitably results in discussion of any environmental issue. Although specifically a case study of coral reef conservation, the social dynamics that play an active role in its generation and evolution show a distinct pattern that is present in nearly any environmental issue, particularly as political and economic ramifications are increasingly highlighted in environmental policy-making. As involvement in the debates regarding the environment commonly go beyond the scientific and policy communities, the primary inhibitors to achieving some sort of compromise for policy action can be largely attributed to a growing uncertainty about the environment and its feedback systems, despite the research investments and technologies that are increasing scientific knowledge. The persistence of uncertainty and the manner in which it is then embraced and internalized within members of the interested networks emerges as a lack of consensus. Ultimately, the discourses and variety of interests combine to generate persistent and contentious debates that intensely polarize those involved and result in the failure to adopt mitigating behaviors or policies. The continuing processes of assessment, factual validation, and mitigation are deeply rooted in the subjectivities of how the topic is individually perceived and how it iterates through the network. Measures considered necessary and effective for one epistemic community translate as excessive, prohibitively expensive or unrealistic to another, often resulting in inaction or slowing progress towards consensus. Meanwhile, scientific communities conclude that time is of the essence if we are to stave off both long- and short-term

1 environmental consequences that undermine effective sustainable use of our natural resources and compromise basic human needs. This work is about coral reefs and their continuing decline, however it would be naive to ignore that the increasing rates of reef decline that are reported are often related to the global problem of climate change and that reef decline is thus also being entrained as another indicator of global warming, sometimes simply presumed and sometimes explicitly stated. Therefore, the decline in ecosystems, particularly coral reefs, includes an assumption that feedback systems and problems and solutions in these environments that are linked in some way to this warming trend and how it manifests in ocean space and is thus a significant part of reef science discourse (Knowlton 2001; Pittock 1999). Average sea surface temperatures have already risen over the past half-century or so, resulting in questions of its links to coral bleaching and death (Glynn 1991), sea-ice cover and sea-level change (Blanchon and Shaw 1995), and particularly the rates of sea-level rise, which some fear will achieve a pace that will not allow reefs to keep up (Gornitz 1991; Knowlton 2001). Even concerns regarding reproduction, genetic biodiversity and Allee effects are associated with global change (Knowlton 2001). Increased levels of partial pressure of

carbon dioxide (CO2) in marine systems have been measured and correlate to average rising temperatures, which has led to concerns over acidification and have sparked aggressive research agendas in that particular direction as the “other CO2 problem” (e.g. Anthony 2008; Doney et al 2009; Hoegh- Guldberg et al 2007). Scientific evidence has indicated that these physical and chemical changes have already had a significant influence in marine ecosystems, for example, affecting breeding, spawning, feeding and migration patterns, as well as altering the capability of tropical organisms to precipitate their limestone skeletons and shells (Kleypas et al 1999; Knowlton 2001). The direct links to issues of global warming with the indicators in reefs, therefore, are not approached as a focus in the survey instrument as they have become among scientists, an implied cause or factor in most all discussions on reef decline. Effects that lie outside of the normative scientific discourses, and which may seem incidental or of little significance, have also resulted in territorial rights-of-access disputes in fisheries, for example1, and elevated awareness and valuation of the economic significance of altered environments sparked by global change (Constanza 1999, 2009; World Resources Institute, n.d.). As such, just about every discussion and concern regarding reefs includes, whether implicit or explicit, some residue of how people feel about climate change, their personal preference of whether it can be attributed to human activities on the planet or is simply part of a cycle that happens irrespective of our proven influences on atmospheric composition and chemical balances. Consequently, nearly any

1 In February of 2004, Barbados filed a suit under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that was heard by the Permanent Court of Arbitration regarding Bajan rights of access to flying fish. Barbados argued that this fishery is a cultural icon and, as such, claimed unassailable rights to their exploitation irrespective of their location. Although the populations used to reside within Bajan EEZ territory, these fish, like many others, have altered their migration patterns, presumably in response to global climate change. Now the fish are found mostly within the EEZ of Trinidad & Tobago. In 2006, the the tribunal decided that Barbados failed to establish its cultural ownership of these resources, and therefore any flying fish found outside Bajan territorial waters remain off-limits to Bajan fishers (Blake & Campbell 2007; Permanent Court of Arbitration http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1152).

2 discussion on conserving or managing an ecosystem by default contains the complexities of global climate change discourses in some form, complete with wider debates and contentions. Among all marine ecosystems, coral reefs are described as those most obviously suffering the greatest rates of physical and ecological deterioration, particularly when located near population centers or easily accessible to a variety of resource exploitation efforts. Some have called reefs the “canary in the coal mine” of marine systems (Riegl et al 2009). A common theme in much of the coral reef literature is a recognition of the complex web of factors endangering their survival and forces that contribute to their apparent continued decline in health and productivity. Numerous site-specific stressors, such as overfishing, pollution, ship-groundings, dynamiting and other physical damage––all of which have their own underlying dynamics in local cultural and biological ecologies––are being exacerbated by such global forces as increasing sea surface temperatures, sea level rise, consequences of population pressures,

increased resource extraction, and marine CO2 sequestration (Birkeland 1997; Marubini et al 2008; Kleypas and Eakin 2007; Knowlton 2001). The increasing awareness of environmental stressors, generally understood since the mid-1900s, have over the past decades spawned large research consortiums and academic collaborations and hundreds of grass-roots organizations with the intent to motivate more assertive management efforts and organize research efforts. On its most basic levels, most all reef-related environmental research in some way attempts to inform how to find the balance between mitigating rates of declines and negotiating rights of access in a coastal commons to ultimately achieve “sustainability,” a troublesome term in itself. Nevertheless, in the case of reefs, the institutional structures to conserve and manage these ecosystems is well in place and present on all scales: global organizations fund and delegate research projects, which are often hooked into academic organizations and governmental organizations, which in turn work with regional partners and branches that are concerned with community relationships and socio-political interactions. The cross-scale linkages that are involved in defining and implementing a solution do not permit agreement about the best way to achieve conservation standards for coral reefs, and therefore regardless of the well-established network interested in these systems, management efforts have achieved overall little success. More science has also not provided the answers, but in fact has served to deepen the conceptual rifts. As knowledge about these ecosystems increases and more is understood about their associated species and complexities, the debates intensify over which factors are most important to address and how to mitigate them. Despite a general agreement that the precautionary principle should apply and that “best available science” is therefore justifiable as its foundation, debate then persists about what that “best available science” may be. The way that scientific information has been interpreted, disseminated, and discussed in networks both within and outside of the epistemic community of reef scientists and professionals has served to slow management efforts as it is stymied by uncertainty and the lack of consensus. Therefore, effective conservation measures seem to remain elusive, often attributed mostly to the “science-policy divide” (Briggs 2006; Carden 2006; Kelleher 2000). However, deconstructing the institutional complexities and knowledge frameworks reveals that significant accountability of

3 environmental inaction can also be placed on consistent and competing mis-interpretation and mis- representations of scientific understandings that are fairly well-established, and upon which action could be taken (Latour 2004). Common to all environmental problems, management and its success is hinged on and therefore must consider human-environment interactions on a local scale in the face of global development and climate change, and in the marine environment, crosses spatial and social boundaries that call into question socio-political power and intent. Reefs also provide an extreme example of environmental issues on practical levels as well: their location in the marine environment poses extra logistical obstacles in conducting science, for example access, while their complexity as an ecosystem that is impossible to continually observe makes it difficult to be certain that something important is not being overlooked. The global distribution of reefs also introduces questions of geopolitics and development in post-colonial contexts. Coral reef conservation science thus provides an ideal model to explore how scientific knowledges about the environment are framed as they are transmitted through the network of professionals that work and manage them. The multi-dimensional issues that are involved in entrenching uncertainty about reef systems provides a rich testing-ground to investigate ways to step around the unresolved or contentious details of competing policy prescriptions in a time when the urgency for action continues to escalate.

1.2 Research Objectives

The objectives of this research are to identify common understandings from competing knowledges and uncertainty regarding coral reef science conservation, and quantitatively rank the subjectivities and goals surrounding policy. This research is driven by my perception that there seems to be a need for a more tenable means by which scientists and policy makers might be able to obtain consensus regarding how to reach declared “common” goals in implementing policy. Given that solving any disagreement or dispute begins with an understanding of the attitudes out of which competing viewpoints arise, or their subjectivities, exploring and defining what subjectivities direct the debates in reef science provides a clear base or platform around which to build consensus and prioritize details. This research attempts to reveal the human dimension inherent in what most consider objective and non- human, i.e. the empirical facts and positivist interpretations collectively known as science, as a way to provide clarity on which claims are generally considered truth, and retire the issues that have been settled. The results provide a description of the preferences and beliefs within the epistemic network and offer a different way forward in conservation that accounts for individual and socially-filtered motives, by quantitatively revealing scientific and management points that share consensus and agreement. The broader impact of this research is its potential to concretely renovate environmental policy- making efforts that have been paralyzed by the lack of consensus within networks that claim a common conservation goal but are hampered by the inertia of conflict in public and politically-motivated debate.

4 In a time when environmental problems are increasingly presented as urgent, this research confronts the main failings of successful engagement of science into effective remediating efforts in a timely manner. But importantly, this work reveals an often unseen mechanism that drives the generation of knowledge and also demonstrates that there is a significant contribution of individuals’ deeper motives or attitudes that is directly tied to epistemological and ontological interpretations, management decision-making, and exposition and adherence to what is claimed as fact. The intellectual merit of this work lies in its relevance to addressing environmental problems, particularly those that have culminated in what appear to be issues too complex to reduce to a manageable number of salient points on which to take steps toward mitigation. This work is primarily grounded in the intention to further methods of interdisciplinary research by engaging basic tenets of social science and geography towards solving environmental problems that have been traditionally consigned mostly to the domain of the natural sciences. Although reef researchers agree that these ecosystems are indeed in crisis, and that time is of the essence, their assertions about the causal links, the hierarchy of issues or stressors, or what exactly should be done to address them, vary too greatly to find an effectual way forward (Agardy 2004; Aronson and Precht 2006; Aronson et al. 2003; Bennett et al 2005; Briggs 2006; Kleypas and Eakin 2007). My quest for identifying underlying consensus among the community of reef scientists around which policy can be structured––the central objective of this research––is guided by three key understandings about marine scientific research. These principles are:

1. Scientific truth-claims are principally contingent on the social dynamics inherent in the production and exposition of scientific “fact” (Kuhn 1996; Latour 1987, 1998, 2004; Law and Mol 2002).

2. Scientific truth-claims are also inexorably connected to both the places and spaces in which research occurs (Livingstone 1995, 2003; Powell 2007) and the geographic and social networks in which they are rooted, debated and disseminated (Demeritt 2002; Pyenson and Sheets- Pyenson 1999; Rocheleau and Roth 2007).

3. The geopolitical conventions, cultural conceptions, and physical characteristics specific to marine settings play a determinant role in processes of scientific research and understanding by constructing a protean framework within which the network operates and is bounded (Connery 2006; Giordano 2003; Keeling 2007; King 2005; Lambert et al 2006; Steinberg 1999a, 2001).

These facets all serve to organize knowledges based on biases and processes that are continually evolving within the epistemic networks in which the individuals operate, and are influenced by the spaces and places in which the research is conducted (Lambert et al, 2006; Powell 2007; Rocheleau and Roth 2007).

5 1.3 Theoretical Foundations

Three core literatures were applied in this work and provide the context of deductive insight that influenced the methodology and analysis of the data. The first involves the production of scientific knowledge and how the scientific process works outside of its theoretical (non-human) ideal. The second concerns itself with the importance of place in generating scientific knowledge; and the third examines the specific difference inherent in understanding human marine geographies, particularities of marine space and their relevance to scientific endeavors, and associated truth-claims. !

1.3.1 Science as a Social Process and Constructed Knowledges

I have never met two people who could agree on what the domain called “science, technology and society” meant–– in fact, I have rarely seen anyone agree on the name or indeed that the domain exists! –– Bruno Latour, Science in Action (1983:16)

The ongoing fragmentation of knowledge and resulting chaos...are not reflections of the real world, but artifacts of scholarship. –– E.O. Wilson, Consilience: The unity of knowledge (1998)

All models are wrong, but some models are useful. –– William E. Deming (McCoy 1994) ❦❧❦ ❧❦

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn (1992) brought to light that science does not advance by a step-wise or linear accumulation of knowledge that expands on some core or central paradigms, but rather that it undergoes abrupt transformations of understandings, later known as “paradigm shifts,” that discard previous knowledge and radically detour in new directions. Describing them as “revolutions,” when anomalous empirical results reach a point of what Kuhn calls a scientific “crisis,” a different paradigm or convention of research is thoroughly embraced in order to accommodate the disparities that were not compatible with the paradigm they were initially designed to expand upon. Although inspiring abundant critiques of science as a process of society, Kuhn’s main claim is that scientific paradigms go from orthodoxy to paradigm-shift to orthodoxy. Delborne (2008) highlights that scientific dissent happens in a process that is subsumed by the simplistic notion of revolution. Importantly, Delborne (2008) highlights how heterogenous practices lie at the core of this creating of dissent and paradigmatic change, and can serve to split scientific communities and beliefs. Scientific change of paradigm focus or conversion of accepted ideologies begins with the emergence of “contrarian science,” which is the collection of claims that stand in direct opposition to the dominant scientific trajectory. This is then followed by “impedance” which represents an effort or counter-measures to undermine contrarian shifts. The progression of science is therefore a continuous iteration of information

6 via these particular dynamics, which essentially reverberate within the scale-free networks2 that deconstruct, re-construct and communicate it. Work such as this by Delborne (2008) is often provided as a critique of Kuhn’s (1992) finer points regarding paradigm incommensurability, particularly regarding it as an oversimplification. But contrarily, as more is understood about these scientific epistemological networks, Delborne’s (2008) work, in fact, supports Kuhn’s main premise that the mechanism of science is in essence a constantly changing epistemic network engaging in continuous re-processing, and re- thinking of existing data as new hypotheses emerge to explain it. Although some read Kuhn’s position as complete abandonment of the old paradigms and the data that supports it, his examples serve to show that what gets abandoned is an old interpretation, the inertia of which inherently resonates in the new––and often because of political interests rather than the factual elements. The example Kuhn uses throughout his landmark work is the abandonment of Ptolomy’s idea of an Earth-centered universe, and adoption of the tenets in the Copernican theory that shifted the center of the solar system to the Sun, a paradigm shift that is often marked as the start of the Scientific Revolution beginning in Europe in the sixteenth century. The unhinging of physical laws from explanations involving Divine intention and goals was a centuries-long process, thoroughly validated through Galileo’s observations of the phases of Venus and Newton’s as equations that provided the mathematical proof that they were accurate. These findings, however, posed a direct threat to the authority of the Vatican, the most dominant power-structure of the time, and resulted in punitive action for what was called heresy. But when copious data made it simply impossible to deny that the Sun indeed is the center of the solar system and Earth simply another one of its satellites (thanks to advances in technologies such as improvements in the telescope), the Earth-centered contention had to change as well, and the church was inclined to acknowledge the change to retain its non-clergy elite and reputation of authority. Once accepted by the powerful establishment, it was acceptable by its society. We still see the tenacity of belief in scientific judgement and the stickiness of out-dated paradigms that are assumed abandoned among the literate in society even today. For example, God’s hand is still seen by some as the controlling force in the development of life and its biodiversity, possibly because even the most rigorous and basic of tenets that define modern science and logic include that it is impossible to prove something does not exist. Early taxonomists such as Lamarck, Chambers, and Spencer and the German Naturphilosphen attributed the diversity of life to a goal-oriented Divine intention, a theistic-determined variable that is reverberated in the concept of “Intelligent Design” found in some fundamentalist religious groups today. But once Darwin proposed his evolutionary theory in the late 1830s, a simplified and non-supernatural organizing principle of why some creatures seem to look very similar and why they exist successfully in their settings became available. For those seeking

2 A scale-free network describes a network that contains “super-nodes” or major hubs that have many more connections than adjacent nodes, rather than a random network of randomly connected nodes, that usually average a same or similar number of connections. In mathematical terminology, a scale-free network topology is highly influenced by the power-law distribution. Examples of “super-nodes” or hubs in a scale-free network may be described as what the the search-engine Google is to the internet, or a famous and commonly-cited researcher is to an epistemic network, such as the mathematician Erdos (Barbasi 2003).

7 “objective knowledge,” this idea better suited the similarities and differences among organisms that were becoming better defined as more biological inventory was amassed (Ayala 2007). Irrespective of the critiques of details Kuhn applied to express his idea of how science works, ultimately he was among the first to articulate how science is not entirely “scientific” but is inherently defined by social norms and biases. Scientific interpretations and conclusions are influenced by faith and religion, personal preferences based on social networks and allegiances, and other such social constructs. Kuhn’s work provided the foundations of a tenet that science does not inherently contain the objectivity that the scientific method institutionalizes, but that complex unpredictable social and structural forces also direct and modify its advance towards finding truths about the world and undermining the presumed “objective” forces that dictate what stands as fact. In this light, it is easy to see that many scientists took and continue to take great issue with his premise; nevertheless, later work inspired by this perspective shows that his overall premise is, in fact, still valid. Bruno Latour’s early body of work (Latour and Woolgar 1979; Latour 1987, 1999) documents an anthropology of how the generation of knowledge and the development of ontologies are hinged on the manner in which scientists interact with their peers and how they apply the epistemological conventions that are contained within the inductive and deductive processes of generating “fact” that is embodied as science. Hargens (2000) established that the way in which references are applied within a network also change the structure of those networks, and can influence the perception of foundational documents and disproportionately allot validity to some scholars and undermine the equally-valid work of others. Hargens (2000) also confirmed the disproportionate referencing of foundational texts, which served more as examples rather than the scaffolding to support particular points as is commonly implied. The preferencing of competing knowledges within a social framework, therefore, does not occur within an objective evaluation of a big picture that considers all options, but rather rests mainly on the social contexts, associated networks, and spaces in which the facts were generated, as well as the technology employed to discover them. Latour (1987) demonstrates that particular scientific conventions, such as supporting a claim by incorporating “semiotic characters” through citing particular (and commonly absent) authors of previous work to support truth-claims,“ exhausts all potential objections in advance...since it can do nothing else but to take the statement up as a matter of fact” (Latour 1987:53). These scholars do not claim that science and fact are social constructs in terms of deception or conspiracy, but rather that each step of the scientific process is subjected to the individual biases that are contained within the epistemic community interested in advancing particular ontologies, and that the production of science cannot simply be separated from the community that generates it as a purportedly objective, disembodied truth (Latour 1987, 1999). From an anthropological view of the processes of science, informal engagements of professionals are significant factors in how science is conducted and allegiances are modified (Latour 1987); and, importantly, what may be superficially perceived as minor, may not be minor at all. The following quote from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) coral-list discussion administrator (and a reef scientist) was motivated by a list discussion that evolved into somewhat

8 questionable civility regarding a petition to list 82 coral species on the Endangered Species List (See Chapter 2 for details). However, this esteemed scientist’s (and list moderator) view expresses exactly what sociologists of science continue to suggest about how science is a dynamic, which consists of personalities, individual goals, social relationships, and institutional structures that directly influence individual decisions, loyalties, and deep-seated attitudes. In an effort to quell the flames of the argument, the moderator outright confirms that science is indeed a highly socialized process that involves many scales, an enormous variety of social networks and communities, and many different and differing power-relationships:

It's hard not to let personalities and our personal passions become part of what we do professionally––for most of us, that's why we do it. I reckon pure science should be utterly passionless, but implementing science via funding agencies means we are ruled by politics, which obviously are not passionless––quite the opposite; and we all have to deal with each other. Throw into the mix the obvious nature of some big egos and it can really foul things up. So we have this continual train wreck of the scientists and conservationists, the glory-hoggers, and the politicians, and everybody trying to get their own way. (NOAA Coral-List Digest, Vol 18, Issue 22, 2010)

Along with confirming in no uncertain terms what sociologists and anthropologists of science have been saying (Latour 1987; Latour and Woolgar 1979), this exemplifies that regardless of the assumed objectivity that scientists are burdened with maintaining in a public (and published) sense, they indeed are driven and do make decisions based on deep-seated beliefs, social allegiances and socio-structural conditions. In fact, an informal and peer-directed conservation network can even resemble some of the pathologies of contentious discourse (e.g. bickering, name-calling, rumor-spreading), which can also have positive or beneficial results for the epistemic community that is concerned with the issues, as is shown by the remainder of the moderator’s message to listers. Outside of the formalized, highly stylized and carefully worded journal articles considered the “standard” ways of scientific communication, i.e. the enduring records of the work, debates within the network inevitably influence the directions of research and directly influence how others in the network will perceive peer-opinions. And, while the impassioned attitudes may produce a variety of responses on many different levels, there can be distinct advantages to expressing what is often not expressed in formalized “objective” professional circles, as the moderator concludes below:

Now, some of the shortcomings of this particular U.S. Government run Coral-List are that you can't lobby Congress, you can't call each other nasty names, you can't send pictures and attachments, and generally everybody has to be nice. However, I have recently been reminded of the Patrick Swayze quote in the movie Road House: “I want you to be nice...until it's time to not be nice.” And so I am most seriously suggesting that "somebody" (not me!) consider starting a Coral Reef Curmudgeons (or Coral Reef Politics, or whatever) list... There you can call each other dirty rotten scoundrels, you can post all kids of illustrative or condemning pictures, you can say whichever U.S. or state

9 government agency is doing a rotten job because so-and-so let his ego get in the way (or whatever); you can say Dr. Blackshark falsified his results, you can say global warming is a big liberal tree-hugging hoax manufactured to keep scientists employed, you can post sarcasm intended to embarrass or provoke, or that all Dr. Blackshark's research money is going to buy junkets to Bali in the name of some dubious research pretext. Such a list might be refreshing, humorous, illuminating and actually useful in letting off steam. New friendships and enemies will be made, people may get embarrassed or feel vindicated, and havoc may result, but some of the truths may enlighten us all. It would be a true, free-wheelin’ list to say what you think without government censorship. It's just an idea to consider.3 (NOAA Coral-List Digest, Vol 18, Issue 22, 2010)

Although this post appears in a list-serve that contains nearly 6,0004 professionals and scientists who study and manage coral reefs (and is also a public forum, open to any who are interested in reefs), the implications of the NOAA moderator’s suggested strategy of generating a list that serves more cathartic purposes, demonstrates the fervor inherent in the variety of what amount to scientific opinions and points to a strong subjective tendency not commonly associated with the generation of scientific fact. The interaction between the listers that culminated with this post expressed a wide range of belief-based interpretations and understandings, heart-felt and deeply personal perceptions of blame and causation, intense vehemence regarding policies––both present and proposed––and implicit motivations of personal and ideological goals, all of which ultimately affect the construction of knowledge and the networks that validate or disavow it. In brief, scientists are human and contain subjectivities that are formed and operate through a combination of their cultural history and the social organization of their work-environments and relations. These subjectivities shape the organization of their intellectual products and technological developments, which in turn iterates and re-forms the organization of scientific work (Yearley 1990). Bias and preference within these linked organizations inevitably permeates scientists’ professional lives. The defensive posturing such a statement may elicit among them can be seen as quite “natural,” given that it runs counter to the goals of objectivity in scientific fact and places their results and conclusions under suspicion of personal influence. However at the same time, it is also understood that bias is usually unintentional and subconscious in that the subjectivities that play a role in determining results and conclusions are not usually purposefully included, but rather are simply part of an individual that cannot be detached. This is not to say that scientists intend to deceive, although the second part of the moderator’s statement above confirms that this also occasionally happens. Scientists often counter this claim of the power of subjectivity, pointing out that a scientific eduction involves training that is designed to reduce its influence. Nevertheless the paradox of requiring objectivity from a highly subjective being is certainly a bane to scientists, given it can destroy the image of

3 Note that “Dr. Blackshark” is a made up name. It is likely the moderator did not use “Dr. Smith” because there are several well reputed and first-rate coral reef scientists by that name, which he clearly does not want to implicate as the perpetrators of the possible actions, motivations, and conversations on this (yet) unestablished “Coral Curmudgeon” list.

4 NOAA coral list-serve homepage, February 2010 (http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list/)

10 science as neutral and open-minded and compromise the perception of their work as entirely rational, impartial, and disembodied objectivity. Other networks, such as political organizations, have successfully latched on to this paradox of objective fact created by subjective agents/agency by picking particular conclusions out of the debate to back their goals, or choosing to acknowledge or cite only a particular scientist or group that may support those goals. This can be observed in global environmental debates as they move through particular mass media organizations, which position the arguments to support specific agendas and interview mainly only those who align with their views. As geographic differences and subjective influences already imply, scientists themselves admit that within the network, finding a compromise or consensus is difficult, which then ends as an open argument that awaits “more science.” However, calls for “more science” make it possible to postpone decisions for problems that are necessary to address at the moment, especially true for environmental issues (Asdal 2005) and also disregards the already-available science. Therefore the second important concept in creating truth about an issue within the sciences is how scientific fact permeates into society: how are these concepts treated once they are “out there,” and how are they framed and discussed outside of the formal and peer-reviewed networks in which they were conceived and exposed? Given the arguments that support inaction in environmental issues are increasingly hinged on this scientific uncertainty, how should uncertainty be dealt with to reduce its importance and how are claims considered fact separated from issues that do require more scrutiny? Later work by Latour (2004) specifically approaches this problem of how scientific uncertainty is used as a justification for political inaction when it enters the realm of the general public. Critiques that are conducted within the circles of science that attempt to probe possible mis-interpretations or question epistemologies are often perceived by external groups as unresolved or unresolvable, or will evolve into debated points on which to base judgement. Although scientific uncertainty is part of the scientific process, it is not this uncertainty about particular facts or “matter of facts” (Latour 2004) that should be important to the “rest of us”––those outside of the epistemic community––but rather that society, in applying scientific information, should instead focus on “matters of concern” which he describes as the “paradigmatic seeds” from which debates arise. In other words, to continue with the highly public global warming debate, that global warming is happening is considered by most all reputable scientists to be certain and so Latour would call this a “matter of concern” upon which action can be built. However, the political and social posturing and the manner in which science is framed implies knowledge insufficiencies and focuses on the uncertainties that are being hammered out within the scientific communities, such as what exactly is driving CO2 levels to increase at the rate we currently see and its particular connection to global warming. These issues, says Latour, do not concern the general public, because they are irrelevant to the fact that it is happening and action should be taken regardless of the details that are yet unresolved. Instead, validation or undermining facts driven by personal or institutional goals of those outside the epistemic network out of which they originate tend to muddle the issues and position the “matter of concern” as an uncertainty by critiquing the “matters of fact.” These

11 matters of fact should instead remain within the domain of the sciences until some resolution is determined among them, while the matters of concern could be promptly dealt with. Latour (2004) contends that this current ideology of critiquing everything and disregarding the bigger picture of what we seem to be sure of has also served to result in stale-mate regarding urgent issues that should be addressed by applying what we can be mostly certain of. Although Latour wholly acknowledges the normative procedures of science, which includes that scientists must negotiate uncertainty as a requisite process to validate our technological and scientific investments, he also confronts the problem of over emphasizing this uncertainty, as is often perpetrated by media, and underscores that although the internal debates and critiques within the scientific communities are necessary to advance science, they have instead become the justification for inaction within policy circles and used as political manipulation that gambles with long-term environmental health. Although this may be extended as a request to thoughtfully embrace uncertainties, the deeper implication is that those who critique or inhibit action by citing conclusions on (“normal”) inconsistencies in science are also typically not those who are qualified to professionally and adequately judge and interpret them in such a manner. Given that Latour was among the first to take the critical view of the sociology/anthropology of science in his early work with Woolgar (Latour & Woolgar 1979), he also clarifies that his work was not meant to imply that science is faulty or a form of deception, nor that we should not trust it or deny that there is some inherent external materiality we can progressively study. His later work recognizes this mis-interpretation of his work and clarifies the distinction between truth-claims and facts in science. Latour (2004) maintains that paralleling the dangers arising from blind confidence in the ideological arguments that are embedded in “matters of fact” are the dangers associated with “excessive distrust of good matters of fact disguised as bad ideological biases” (Latour 2004: 227) and a lack of attention to “matters of concern.” Latour suggests taking a step back from the easily manipulated refutation of specific facts, and instead devising new means by which to deconstruct the nature of science not by describing how its outcomes are socially constructed, but by conceding that often the material objects that scientists study cannot always be socially explained nor would a social explanation be reasonable or necessary. The details and processes that construct “matters of fact” should therefore not be the points (or contentions) upon which decisions are made of whether or not to develop policy, but rather should be contained within a deeper thread that is shared within the scientific community as a “matter of concern” (Latour 2004). In brief, scientific information goes through an enormous set of socialized processes and hurdles before it finally reaches the formalized fora that coagulate its validation and offers the epistemic network an additional piece of evidence––data––to apply to dominant interpretations. “Premature” engagement of such unresolved issues by those outside of the epistemic networks of scientists has been shown to result in drastically slowing progress towards certainty. Critiques about the data by those who may not be best qualified to pass judgement, or ignoring important contextual particularities, have been useful to socio-political organizations that interpret them as needed to achieve their particular agendas. Media

12 organizations, required to “dumb down” scientific findings to suit their general audiences (who have varying amounts of scientific knowledge and educational background), often over-simplify the issues by necessity, thereby frequently rendering them incorrect. Therefore the particular problems within the sociology of science, which in fact is a cultural anthropology of science when seen from the analytical perspective of Latour’s work (1987, 1999) and in his work with Woolgar (1979), embed issues common to all socio-cultural dynamics: power relationships, oral and written traditions, taboos and rituals, and expansion outside of the traditional epistemic networks.

1.3.2 Geography of Science: Situated Knowledges or Place Matters.

Land is the secure ground of home, the sea is like life, the outside, the unknown. ––Stephen Gardiner

Those who live by the sea can hardly form a single thought of which the sea would not be part. ––Hermann Broch

It is of great use to the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean. ––John Locke

Experimentation has a life of its own. ––Ian Hacking ❦❧❦ ❧❦

Geographers have confronted the spatiality and spatio-cultural internment of science in place from a wide variety of perspectives (Powell 2007), yet all contend that places in which science happens matter. However, scientific knowledge and theories are commonly understood as generally applicable without much consideration as to where they were conceived or conducted, their geographic origins, nor how they propagated out of those settings. Scientific knowledge is often produced in laboratories, in field sites, in universities or establishments like museums and research institutions; yet, in its discussions, its debates, and its quest for universality, it becomes de-located and presumed ubiquitous and all- encompassing or exemplary of a certain set of conditions. Science is a social and cultural construction (see Sec. 1.3.1). The places, e.g. countries, work-spaces and institutions, where scientific fact is “discovered” and disseminated are also social and cultural, and provide the distinctive and differently- interpreted boundary conditions under which observations are made and how they are decoded and made relevant (Livingstone 2003). Understanding a geography of science therefore will better elucidate how scientific knowledge is imprinted by its location. Livingstone (2003), among the most prolific scholars to query how space and place affects science, conceives its spatialities in the site (the actual spaces in which science occurs), the region (the geographic areas that contain the sites), and the circulation of scientific knowledge, in which he examines the variables that determine how science is communicated across and between those spaces and places (Latour 1987; Livingstone 2003, 2005).

13 Sites of Science: Science is concerned with ideas and practices that happen in institutions or in the field, in other words, in the spaces of observation. Sites of science all have a spatial dimension that influences how research and information are formulated and developed and essentially sets the conditions under which observations will be made and experiments conducted (Powell & Vasudevan 2007) and how they resonate out of those places (Powell 2007). A laboratory, for example, is a bounded and ideally generic, “set-up” space that contains particular technologies and equipment and is managed by an individual or groups of individuals who also decide who is to have access, how experimentation is conducted, which technologies will be purchased, and what findings will be publicized. A field site, too, contains obvious constraints of observation and bias. Once it is understood that science in place is extracted, transformed and constructed from our personal perceptions of what we pay attention to and find value in understanding and knowing, it is difficult to claim that we have captured the reality that exists “out there” as independent of our focus, preference and vision (Knorr 1979). Even in the most practical of queries, preferences and access issues play the decisive role: How are field sites chosen and these choices finalized? How often or by what means will observations be made? What equipment is available and are there qualified individuals to transport and operate it? The data retrieved from the field therefore depends on these types of decisions, which then also must consider difficulty of access, individual skill-levels and aptitudes (Nutch 1996). The premise of a lab and field site can be considered opposite in that the lab is a de-located space that attempts to entirely control and “normalize” the ambient conditions, while a field site is one in which the random influences of the environment are present and desired; yet the subjective steps to obtain data from these venues are present in both settings and inherently hinges all observation to cultural and individual preferences, abilities, and geographies (Powell 2007; Powell & Vasudevan 2007). Settings in which the lab and field site come together, e.g. a natural history museum, confirm that there is some innate understanding of the importance of place. Attempts of extracting the natural world are evident in museums, which are generally carefully- organized spaces in which exhibits are deliberately placed, categorized (often geographically), and commodified to attract interest, affirm cultural associations and similarities or highlight differences, and develop perceptions of social and cultural worth. Similarly, zoos and botanical gardens attempt to provide the indigenous settings for their imported species and transplant an exotic, natural environment to align with how it is imagined by the hosting culture. Academic institutions, where knowledge is both created and communicated, are also spaces of culture with distinct reverberations of local languages, sociological countenance, customs, rules, and ideologies (Livingstone 2005; Pyenson & Sheets Pyenson 1999). Where Livingstone (2003) and Pyenson & Sheet-Pyenson (1999) separated the spaces of science as laboratory, field sites, museums and institutions, de Bont (2009) expanded on these postulations and showed that even spaces that ostensibly resembled each other in their missions and set-up can result in very different institutions which apply very different epistemological premises. DeBont (2009) documented how two marine field stations, both intended to bring the researcher closer to the studied environment and “re-naturalize” the studied objects, produced different normative epistemologies and ontological directives despite their material, locational and philosophical similarities. This fine

14 stratification of “marine field station” further demonstrates that location, despite its presumed passivity, combined with social values and distinguishing norms, plays a major role in the formation of scientific fact and can, in fact, direct the establishment of dominant paradigms and normative epistemologies that are eventually considered universal. Sites of science are the foundational level of analysis when considering how scientific observations are made, or even what observations can be made. In the marine environment, and for coral reefs, the necessary materials and requisite conditions to set up scientific research in these environments are fairly demanding both within the lab and in the field. For example, the sensitivity of the coral animals requires specific conditions for a survivable living environment (discussed in detail in Chapter 2), basically amounting to the need for constant fresh flows of high-quality, clean sea water, abundant light within the wavelengths that can be used by plants, and a tight range of water temperatures. However, even if kept under those idealized conditions, there is no guarantee that the creatures would respond in the same way in their natural environment, and in fact, rarely do. The artificial and controlled lab environment provides consistencies that are simply not present in nature. Conditions in the marine environment fluctuate constantly, and results seen in the lab do not necessarily reflect what would happen under “natural” conditions. And in the field, the location of reefs requires a sea-worthy vessel (and basic boat skills) to reach them, individuals with diving, swimming, snorkeling or (usually) SCUBA skills, local knowledge of the reef area and the variances to expect on the sites, specialized (and usually expensive) gear with which to record and retrieve data (e.g. survey equipment, underwater camera gear, diving equipment, etc.), some defined or regular frequency of observing the site, and of course the practical concerns of weather conditions, tides, and sea-states that determine whether the excursions can happen in the first place. The environmental circumstances, specialized skills and associated costs and investments that are entailed to be able to work on reefs (or in marine environments in general) establish a level of exclusivity not only to access the site, but also to study it with appropriate scientific rigor. Regions of Science: The regional differences that make up a place such as educational customs, linguistic heritage, channels of intellectual exchange, cultural attributes, including religious customs and ideologies, come together to generate regional identities that also impact how science is generated and communicated, accepted or rejected (Powell 2007; Pyenson & Sheets-Pyenson 1999; Livingstone 2005). Essentially, an analytical perspective that considers differences in regions where scientific practice occurs, and considers the variety of cultures producing science becomes important in how “generic” or “universalized” knowledges are communicated, evaluated and internalized (Nutch 1996). However, this perspective stands in direct opposition with the idea that universal knowledge does not belong to any particular social place, and so in the words of Shapin (1998:5), “[scientific] Truth is––and arguably, always has been––‘the view from nowhere.’” The universalization of scientific knowledge, therefore, subsumes any locality and regionality, and wrongly presumes a standardized, conventional, and unified protocol of epistemologies and experimentation, and homogenous ideological and philosophical perspective in its generation and exposition (Law 1987; Nutch 1996; Powell 2007; Shapin 1998).

15 A regional geography of science provides insight into the specific normative social parameters of how knowledge in place is constructed, the acceptable epistemological methods that define its validity, and the social conditions that judge and stabilize truth or fact (Livingstone 2003; Pyenson & Sheets- Pyenson 1999). Law and Mol (2001) further this idea and show that not only does the location (and site) matter in how science and technological advances are made, but that an additional topological form of networks and socially-linked structural connections are just as relevant because technological and scientific advances are reproduced, communicated, and modified through these dynamics. Law (1986, 1987) describes how power and dominance of what amounts to a relatively small center (Portugal) over an enormous periphery (e.g. Africa, India) was exerted by the development of specialized technologies, in this case the Portuguese long-distance vessels, which ensured a constant presence, material flow and adhered the colonies to the colonizers. The Portuguese vessel was therefore more than a transportation device, but materialized a real connection and communication link between the two, entrenching Portuguese domination in those relatively distant places through this technology and through its presence. These barques not only were the mechanism of efficient travel, but also became symbols of superiority and icons of power. Law (1986) establishes that technological developments have enormous bearings on cultural flows, information, and the transfer of knowledge, which are selective and exclusionary and happen in a dynamic, scale-free network that can supersede distance (Barbasi 2003). In a similar way, the epistemic networks that exist in place and across it today, e.g. research consortiums or non-governmental organizations (NGOs), overlay geography but are not defined nor generally restricted by it, and as such generate a tight system that is difficult to penetrate from an external and located position. This structural norm not only de-locates these networks but also gives the impression that place has no influence on the goal, but is simply an attendant feature of the missions to achieve those goals. The movement of information and knowledge across networks constitutes an additional social geography of science and is a factor that influences how spaces of science are de-located, universalized and appropriated as normative, or entrained into (or excluded from) the functional networks that verify it. Pyenson and Sheets-Pyenson (1999) and Butzer (1992) draw in geopolitical relevance to spaces of science and conclude that practices of early science emerged and were organized, appropriated, financed and institutionalized (e.g. in the form of museums or universities) out of geographically-embedded social frameworks, which contain distinct cultural and associated ideological norms. These authors further confirm the importance of places and physical spaces in the creation of scientific knowledge, as well as how such knowledge is perceived in cultural spaces as it emanates outward via communication networks built to de-locate and universalize it. Regional cultures accept and appropriate different scientific knowledges in different ways that align with their particular cultural norms and traditions or support particular beliefs. Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution5 was, for example, perceived in two very different ways when it was projected on

5 Although today acknowledged that Alfred Wallace deserves equal credit for the theory of evolution, as it is now accepted that both Darwin and Wallace had the same idea at the same time. Darwin, however, “scooped” Wallace and published it first to appropriate ownership of the idea (Milner 2009). The remainder of the text therefore refers to the theory of evolution/natural selection as Darwin’s theory of evolution.

16 social behaviors. In Auckland, New Zealand colonists welcomed the idea, claiming it as a legitimate reason for dominating and eliminating the Maori, considered barbaric, weaker and ill-equipped to survive in changing times. As an “inferior” being, their extinction, according to sociological adaptation of Darwinist theory, was therefore inevitable and the racist ideologies therefore ensured survival of people and societies more fit and stronger, and therefore supported and justified the treatment of the Maori and the mind-set of the colonists. Alternatively, Darwin’s idea was vehemently rejected by American Southerners during the antebellum period, who saw ethnicity as a category of different speciation as accorded by God. They wholly rejected the idea that they as whites were in any way biologically related to their African slaves, adhering instead to the Christian Bible’s narrative that God crafted each different species. White slave-owning planters were thus incensed at even the idea of any genetic relationship to these commodified blacks. To the Southerners, if black people were merely a different phenotype of human and therefore directly related to whites, then it would not be defensible in the eyes of God to enslave them, thus leading to an emphatic rejection of Darwin’s evolutionary theory in this region. In New Zealand, therefore, Darwin’s scientific theory justified a racist ideology and was fully embraced; while in the American South during the antebellum era, evolution directly condemned racist conventions of separate origins, therefore implying egregious infractions of general human decency as outlined by accepted Christian ideology, and and was thus vehemently rejected as false (Livingstone 2003). Regional cultural differences in normative beliefs and ideologies therefore at least contribute to, if not determine how scientific ideas are conceived, framed, and ultimately conveyed. Regional material and geographical differences in reef environments are radically different, which is discussed in detail in Chapter 2. However, the overlap of the research network in these regions is also a consideration in forming the “big picture” of reef environments, i.e., a reef research geography. Because reef scientists are essentially all within the same network, attend more or less the same meetings, read the same, or a core set of journals (and authors), and function (and move) through a core set of institutions, it is generally expected that they are aware of the same science and knowledge of reefs “out there” regardless of where they may be located. Few reef scientists, however, are native to the areas that contain reefs, given most of the reef environments are in countries that are generally impoverished, have limited economic resources and a relative scarcity of institutions of higher education, or considered as developing countries with significant subsistence and artisenal communities that trail behind the globalized capitalist-entrenched economies that sometimes constitute definitions of modernity(e.g. much of the Caribbean, the South Pacific, Indonesia, Africa) (Dicken 2007; Porter and Sheppard 1998). In some cases, (e.g. Cuba, China, Burma) political tensions and sanctions inhibit open communication and sharing of results or efforts. It is, for example, very difficult for an American scientist to do work in Cuba, and there has been more than one instance when Cuban scientists working on reefs were not provided visas to visit the U.S. for conferences. Exceptions of course exist, and there are also countries considered “developed” to have interest in reef systems, such as Australia, Singapore, Japan, and the United States, which all have extensive reef areas. These countries also have the available resources to invest in conservation and have generally

17 established networks of open exchange with each other and interested inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Nevertheless, neglecting regional differences in the human relationships with marine ecosystems and, importantly, regional governance frameworks in efforts of marine protection, has made finding a unified way forward messy at best (Juda and Hennessey 2001). The problem posed by regionality and geographic difference is also partly to blame for a lack of an international regime to effectively manage and govern coral reefs in a consolidated and unified system (Dimitrov 2002). Boesch (1999) showed that on regional scales, the interactions between science and governance are more substantial, ongoing and effective because as scientists experience the local, they gain rich experiences that allow them to find common ground and communicate effectively with local socio-political structures. Many scientists who study reefs around the world mostly come from, or are educated or have significant exposure (e.g. post-docs) mainly in developed countries6, which have established academic institutions, political and social systems that are dominated by capitalist economies and top-down governance structures that are enforcement- and penalty-driven. This cultural attribute is often internalized during the period of training and often results in the transfer of epistemologies normative to developed capitalist countries to places in which such top-down enforcement structures are neither feasible nor functional. Developing countries, most of which are scrambling to engage in globalized capitalist economies, often have unstable political structures and artisenal economies within their borders and are generally dependent on wealthy nations for trade and inclusion in the world markets and as sources of new technologies. Despite the political and economic mis-match between reef-bearing nations, professionals who are trained to manage reefs often look to the management frames applied in developed nations, or to firmly-established and well-organized, long-standing systems for answers without much regard for disparities in social capital7 between these regions (VanCleve et al 2006). Therefore, in general, resource distribution systems and protective measures of reef environments do not easily transfer between the disparate countries. Advanced technologies that seep into the developing regions but with a premise of developed-nation capitalism do not necessarily serve to integrate those regions into the global system, but often instead generate and entrench regional poverty and exacerbate crime and violence by eliminating functioning local economies without providing any alternative for those deposed and

6 Exploring the International Society for Coral Reef Studies Symposium Abstracts volume, every scientist/presenter looked up (500+) has either an affiliation or past experience with an academic organization in a developed country. Well-established reef research groups in developing nations, such as those in Mexico, the Philippines, Jamaica and Kenya/Tanzania have scientists in the departments who have either strong collaborative relationships with scientists from wealthy nations, or research experience as visiting scholars, sometimes sponsored by their home-country. Others who were affiliated with a non-governmental organization or a conservation group either modeled themselves after a formula provided by a “developed” country’s protocol or were an extension of an NGO based in a developed country. Some exceptions certainly do exist, such as in Cuba, which has a well-organized reef-research group and relatively little scientific collaboration with the U.S. However because reef research is a fairly small and specialized topic, collaboration or interaction is inevitable, regardless of political systems or development status.

7 Social capital is a local human geography that is defined as the relationships of trust, reciprocity and exchange, common rules, norms and sanctions and connectedness within groups, particularly on local managerial levels (VanCleve et al 2006).

18 displaced by these technologies. All of these variables have been found to be crucial in shaping individual action to achieve positive conservation outcomes, especially in developing countries where social structures are inter-dependent and heavily influenced through community relationships. The local community structures inherent in the variety of political systems of developing regions therefore typically resist and override the implicit authority given to de-located scientific knowledge (Pretty and Smith 2006). Perceptions of the environment from regional versus distant locations are also influential in shaping understanding of those environments. A study by Kweon and others (2006) demonstrated that there are significant effects of distance and content when they compared scientists’ “self-reported” environments, that is narratives from those in place who have contact with the environments they are researching, to what they call “objective environments,” which are those same places but seen from a distant perspective such as satellites, aerial photographs and GIS-based maps. Although these differences varied significantly in large terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic and marine systems seems to combine them into a single dimension. These authors further suggest that this is likely because water bodies alter our spatial behaviors as we move about in our environment. Proximity to the environment in question also plays a major role in perceptions of size and importance. The correlation between the self-reported environment and the objective environment significantly decreased the further the scientist was based from that environment, and the perception of size also becomes less definite with distance. Not surprisingly, knowledge regarding spaces “close to home” was also most similar between those in the self-reported versus objective environments (Kirtland et al, 2003; Kweon et al 2006). It has been shown that there is also significant tension between managers (who function locally) and scientists (who create “global” products in the form of knowledge) that inhibits effective integration of viable means of conservation (Roux et al 2006). As would be expected with such disparities, conservation systems designed and meant for the commons in developed countries are not necessarily applicable to developing countries as the former are dominated by top-down regulatory devices, such as no-take restrictions, or have strict uses of coastal systems that are backed by strong enforcement units and stringent penalty systems. The systems that come out of wealthy countries also generally have a federally-regulated rule-making protocol and clearly defined sanctioning and funding procedures for international organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or other geographically “de- located” bodies seeking oversight authority over a place that also extends control into local-level policies and imposes change on social systems that in some cases, have long been in place as an effective conservation measure. These actions have been shown in some cases to in fact undermine the health of the environment because of the abrupt socio-structural alternations they inevitably force (Neumann 1998). Transferring universalized science and management systems across geopolitical space that have such extreme disparities in social status and resources (both human and fiscal) has generated deep mis- perceptions and a mistrust of motive across all social systems involved in reef conservation and science, sometimes leading to extreme conflict in the communities that rely on reefs for subsistence (Trist 1999; Wally 2004; West & Brockington 2006). Clarifying how to engage adaptive and sustainable management

19 policies and apply scientific findings across the board are among the primary goals of policy scholars today (Dietz 2003; Trist 1999; Wally 2004). Communication of Science: The way that particular scientific ideas are transferred, interpreted and accepted within different cultures and across space is also of interest to geographies of science. Self- referential ideas and perceptions are profoundly affected by time and distance (Kewon et at 2006), and can therewith change the perceptions of how the natural world is constructed. Power structures are also evident in how knowledge about the “natural world” is transmitted. Doel and others (2006), for example, reveal that the basis of Bruce C. Heezen and Marie Tharp producing a physiographic rather than bathymetric map of the seafloor to publish during the late 1950s was decided because of the military’s restriction on producing accurate and navigable sea-floor maps that would be available to the public. Such socio-political manipulations and restrictive expositions of scientific knowledge to exert control or power, and the ways in which science is transmitted and perceived by a variety of agents in the network is not a modern phenomenon, however. All throughout history, particularly during the era of trans- oceanic expansion and the need to inventory, map, and universalize knowledge to entrench and reinforce incumbent power structures , knowledge and science and its communication was continually transformed as explorers returned to the core (Law 1986; Pomeranz and Topik 1999; Scott 1998), summarized by Latour (1987): “The implicit geography of the natives is made explicit by geographers; the local knowledge of the savages becomes the universal knowledge of the cartographers; the fuzzy, approximate and ungrounded beliefs of the locals are turned into a precise, certain, and justified knowledge...” (Latour 1987: 216; emphasis in original). Tools and equipment also figured heavily into European expansionism and Enlightenment science, which included better vessels and sea-worthy clocks that advanced navigation and freed the ships from their usual routes (Sobel 1995). The transmission of knowledge was and still is contingent on the data-sources (e.g. natives revealing their landscapes), and the manner in which those who documented the information perceived and understood that knowledge, the goals of wanting or applying the information, and the intent of those who controlled it. Shapin (1998) emphasizes that because of the increasing efficiency with which scientific knowledge flows between places, or “scientific travel,” and the universality this rapid transfer implies, geographically locating the production of scientific fact becomes even more important in order to validate the underlying assumptions. The efficient manner in which scientific facts are spread across space thereby makes the geographic sensibilities towards science an increasingly relevant issue to the acceptance and validation of knowledge. Scientific travel and networks through which information is passed also requires a level of trust and endowed authority in the individual making claims, and implicitly contains a hierarchy of power within those networks (Livingstone 2003; Shapin 1998). Knowledge (and power) resides in books, instruments, and maps, and is embodied in people who observe and note what they see from their particular perspectives filtered through their particular ideology, whether calculated or simply as part of a commodification and standardization process. Transference of those items across geographic space is assumed to be benign and neutral, particularly with the stringent “rules” of knowledge-making, yet all research points towards small and localized

20 modifications to accommodate geographic difference, and the variety of motivations and intended uses of truth-claims (Knorr 1979; Livingstone 2003, 2005; Law 1987; Shapin 1998). The heterogeneity of academic scholarship across space is united by its idealized agnostic or more common atheist stance, a reputation of scientific truth, and importantly, the variety of socially contingent manners in which the objects of science are constructed and knowledge about them are validated and communicated (Demerritt 2006). As such, scientific findings are both local and global, particular and universal, and rarely contemplated as direct reflections of the cultural, political, and historical contexts of the sites within which they are constituted (Kweon et al 2006; Law 1986; Latour 1987; Shapin 1998). And when they do achieve a relative distance from where they were formulated, for example the varied reception of the theory of evolution, they are accepted and applied in ways that are highly contingent on cultural influences and social norms and goals. 1.3.3 Marine Geography: Ocean Space, Representations, and Reef-Rich Places

"It was the Law of the Sea, they said. Civilization ends at the waterline. Beyond that, we all enter the food chain, and not always right at the top." –– Hunter S. Thompson

Ocean, n.: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man –– who has no gills. –– Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is quite clearly Ocean. ––Arthur C. Clarke

But ships are but boards, sailors but men… and then there is the peril of waters, winds, and rocks’ –– Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, Act I, scene iii.

[The wind] increased at night until it blew a gale, And though ‘twas not much to a sailor’s mind, A landman would have looked quite pale–– For sailors are in fact a different kind. –– George Blanchard ❦❧❦ ❧❦

! The underlying foundation of this work is dominated by a marine geographical perspective, specifically how materialities, imaginations and perceptions of ocean space influence how we conduct scientific work on its ecosystems and orchestrate marine conservation. Oceans are distinctly different from land in many ways, most fundamentally in a material sense, as a liquid for which we are ill- equipped to dominate as we do terrestrial space. Movement across and in this environment requires specialized skills, technological innovations and instruments, and the resources to cover the price-tag that comes with it (Steinberg 1999, 2001). Although such ecosystems as coral reefs are “natural” and like all

21 dynamic natural systems go through geologic cycles of abundance and decline, of extinction and evolution, how human interactions and perceptions have influenced and altered these dynamics has also remained difficult to pin down. A human geography of ocean space has been generally neglected, in part because considering this space as a place of human integration seems counter-intuitive to our more standard ideas of the sea as a space of division and separation, as one that lies outside of traditional ideas of habitation and domination (Steinberg 1999). As a space that is resistant to direct and continuous state surveillance and territoriality, the oceans have been imagined as “empty,”outside of normal human experience, and more of a aesthetic object of contemplation, commodification and idealized environmentalism. Although resources like fish are considered a standard staple, most of those who consume it rarely have direct interaction with the sea, nor the processes that are involved in marine resource extraction and commodification. Conceptual (and physical) distance such as this has resulted in distinctly different ideas of the marine environment and has served to separate the real from the imagined perceptions of ocean space and marine environmentalism (King 2005). Historical Geography of Human Interaction with the Sea A brief and simplified anthropological history with a frame of analysis from a maritime perspective indicates that coasts have been the preferred environment throughout human history. Although much of the archaeological evidence is believed to have been eradicated through sea-level changes that have happened throughout humanoid evolution, scholars mostly agree that migrations out of our East African savanna origins and across the Eurasian landmass predominantly took place first along the coasts (and large rivers), then spread inland. It is proven that even the pre-human Homo erectus had found a way to cross significant distances at sea based on 1.5 million year old fossil evidence in Indonesia, which had already separated from the Asian land mass at the time of H. erectus colonization. Homo sapiens came much later, but were much more efficient and successful, migrating out of East Africa about 100,000 years ago and reaching Australia as early as 60,000 years ago (Fernández-Armesto 2006). In fact, our propensity to settle “by beach-clinging and island-hopping” has inspired some alternative theories about our emergence from inland savannas:

According to a theory held in contempt by most paleo-anthropologists, Homo sapiens evolved from an aquatic ape8––which, if true, might explain our vocation for the sea. But the arguments [supporting this idea] are at best very tenuous… (Fernández-Armesto 2006:7)

However, what puzzles many anthropologists is not that humans made it to these places along the coasts and coastal watersheds, but that they waited so long before permanently moving to insular areas. Extension into the South Pacific and Caribbean regions and establishing human cultural seeds and

8 footnote in original and reads as follows: E. Morgan, The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (London, 1997)

22 settlements took time, it is hypothesized, mainly because of the material and physical challenges imposed by oceans and the specialized equipment needed to mobilize in and across it. It is presumed that the ancestors of those who greeted Columbus in 1492, the Lucayans of San Salvador in the Bahamas, came from the mainland of what is now northeastern Venezuela about 40009 years prior to the fateful European encounter, hopping across the island-arc of the Lesser Antilles, reaching the Leeward Islands and Greater Antilles and probably hitching a ride on the Gulf Stream to eventually reach The Bahamas (De Booy 1912; Richardson 1992; Rouse 1993). It is believed that these early Arawak10 populations were being pushed north by the hostile and growing Carib tribes of present-day eastern South America. Caribs who were to follow the Arawak into the Caribbean, however, mostly remained in the rugged, volcanic islands of the Lesser Antilles where steep topography discouraged large-scale agricultural organization (Fernádez- Armesto 2006; Richardson 1992; Rouse 1993). The Arawak, later called the Taino, dominated the larger landmasses of the Greater Antilles of what is now Cuba, Puerto Rico, Jamaica and Hispañola, which although also having some volcanic geology and rugged topographies, these large islands have significant expanses of rolling plains and gentle terrain with fertile soils––very well-suited for agriculture as colonial Europeans quickly discovered (Butzer 1992; Crosby 2003; Mintz 1985). Behavioral differences in the pre-Columbian Caribbean cultures are also in part attributed to the type of insularity and potential land-use regimes that amount to physical geographies and material difference. The larger islands in the Greater Antilles offered more space for agriculture and resources to establish more permanent and organized communities, which allowed the Arawak to settle and engage in trade networks and sophisticated rituals that revolved around harmonic existence; while the small and resource-poor volcanic islands only reinforced hostile behaviors of the Caribs, who often engaged in raids and battle with the Arawak to obtain necessary resources, mainly food, tools and implements, and women, so to avoid inbreeding (Butzer 1992; Crosby 2003; Richardson 1992; Rouse 1993; Wilson 1997). Although this perspective echoes basic tenets of environmental determinism (Semple 1909), which has been consistently discounted as motivated by racist and imperialist tendencies in the time of its proliferation (Peet 1985), recent work has nevertheless shown that social survival and cultural success does, to a significant degree, depend on the material limits in environment in the context of adaptation to existing resources. In fact, resource-limits apparently very much influence how cultures adapt and assimilate their attendant material and physical environments into generating self-sustaining behaviors (Hrebiniak and Joyce 1985; McClure 2007; O’Brien and Leichenko 2003; Varinlioğlu 2007). Thus physical geographies very much influence how we act in and understand particular environments.

9 earliest entry into the insular Caribbean is thought to be the Guatahanabey of western Cuba, who it is presumed, crossed from the Yucatan 6000 years before present, about 2000 years before the Arawak would enter through Trinidad and Tobago. It is believed,however, that the Guatahanabey people did not migrate out of this region, isolated from later populations by the Sierra del Rosario, the mountain chain that lies to the east of what is now called the Guatahanacabibes Peninsula of Cuba (Richardson 1998; Rouse 1992).

10 The Arawak, known as a peaceful tribe of the South American eastern coasts, became the Taino once they had settled in the insular Caribbean and claimed their origins as emerging from a cave in what is now Puerto Rico (Rouse 1992). This change in identity also confirms the importance of perceptions of geographic origin as a form of ownership and belonging to place, and with that, developed a distinctly maritime culture.

23 A similar developmental trajectory can be seen in the South Pacific. This area, dominated by atolls speckled across enormous distances, also provides evidence that insular places were also among the last to be settled and the most difficult in which to establish long-term thriving communities, corroborated by the many that also failed (Diamond 2005). Although the Solomon Islands (close to Papua New Guinea) were inhabited as early as 32,000 years before present, the Vanuatu Islands hosted the earliest known human settlements of Oceania dated to only about 3000 years before present. These civilizations eventually spread east, reaching Easter Island and Hawaii at about 1200 years before present (Houghton 1996). Again, this delay is assumed to be because of the practical know-how required to survive in marine-dominated regions and the vast distances between atolls and islands, as well as the small size of the islands and associated ecosystem sensitivity (Fernández-Armesto 2006; Macarthur and Wilson 1967). Evidence exists that shows these early people eventually developed methods that allowed them to effectively navigate enormous distances by watching the patterns of weather and swell, developing specialized maps made of sticks and shells to represent islands and dominant swells. In other words, these early cultures were able to recognize patterns and differences across ocean space that is often perceived as homogenous, inconsistent, and chaotic. Pacific islanders developed simple and enduring vessels, efficiently exploited marine resources, established taboos and normative practices that with an environmental deterministic perspective could be seen as forms of resource management practices. These cultures set-up trade networks between islands, specialized in particular goods and rapidly developed trans-oceanic trade networks and cultural exchange presumably because of the limitation of resources in one region or island group (Houghton 1996; Diamond 2005; Richardson 1998; Rouse 1992). Therefore, although coastal regions are thought to have been the main migration routes for the rapid spread of humanoid populations, permanent settlement of distant, vast insular areas was among the last to be achieved (Houghton 1996; Fernández-Armesto 2006).

Modern Influences and Perceptions of Marine and Coastal Spaces Histories of colonization and the capitalist driven pulses of globalization have been effectively integrated and continue to engage in the dynamic of annihilating ocean space, which have served to accelerate the spread and encounter of cultures (Jacques 2006; Steinberg 1999, 2001). Complex relationships between economies and the seas have emerged throughout human history, and seeped into our social organization as modified versions of maritime cultures (e.g. Rediker 2004) or have been driven by globalizing economic systems and the need for inclusive global maritime policies (DeSombre 2006; Frankel 1995; IWC 1998; Vallega 2001). Because most modern histories have been appropriated and defined by national boundaries and states, the oceans as a framework of analysis consists of a remote ambiguously defined space at its most distant from land (e.g. the High Seas), with clearly-defined and extended boundaries of spatial control as one moves towards land (e.g. territorial seas). State-centered views of ocean space regarding regulation and extraction have, however, led to obstacles of economic integration because of artificial conceptual boundaries defined by state lines (Bentley 1999). An ocean- centered perspective that dissolves state boundaries indicates that our drive to conquer and appropriate

24 the seas has not diminished despite our successes in crossing them. Modern human activities at sea and on the coast have only intensified as a mode of communication and commodification (Steinberg 2001), while conflicts arise over boundaries and traditions as populations on the coast continue to increase (e.g. Blake & Campbell 2007). Paradoxically, despite the difficulties of living along the coast and the looming dangers that exist in, and emerge from the oceans, there is clear evidence of a strong atavistic drive to be near the sea that consistently overrides the fear of the risks associated with it. As of 1998, over half of the world’s population lived within 200 kilometers (km) of the coast, at that time an estimated 3.2 billion people (Hinrichson 1998). In the twenty-first century, coastal populations continue to increase rapidly. In 2003, NOAA estimated that the coastal population of the U.S. and its territories exceeded 153 million people, constituting about 53% of the nations population at that time. Modest estimates of the distribution of global populations in 2008 determined that over 40% of the world’s population now live within 100 km of the coast (Crossett et al 2004; McClanahan et al 2007). At the core of human imagination, the sea elicits contradictory emotions as a special place, both earthly but alien, obvious and present, yet mysterious, forbidden and dangerous but also beautiful and paradisal. The conflicting emotions and understandings between the idealized and “actual” environment have been shown to manifest as crisis, and generate tension about the appropriate uses of ocean space and environmentalism, and in fact, limit potential in conservation ideals (King 2005). Its perception of inaccessibility and unfathomable size conceivably also contributes to our relative lack of understanding of how anthropogenic forces have the ability to significantly change it. Our construction of ocean environments as outside of normal, i.e. exceptional human experience has produced a distinct imagination of the oceans that is reflected in our culture and has affected how we manage and perceive ocean space. Modern-day pirate stories of hijackings, kidnappings, ransom and casualties have cast a dark shadow on the typically romantic narratives of Caribbean piracy during the European excavation of the mineral wealth of the New World and have resulted in some areas of ocean space “too dangerous” for travel of any kind. Human threats such as this however are far surpassed by perception of the threats from the ocean’s native creatures. Documentary titles and other textual imagery of the seas for lay-audiences reinforce and deepen mainly fearful or ominous perceptions of the oceans through titles such as “Wild Ocean,” “Aliens of the Deep,” “Legend Hunters–Sea Monsters,” “Kraken Project,” “The Underwater Universe––Seven Deadly Seas,” “Menacing Waters,” Discovery’s “Shark Week,” and so on, stitched together with unsettling music, gory images of predation or attack and struggles of survival, and narration that underscores this is a place that we should not be in. Although more people die from bee stings than shark attacks every year, a commonly stated idea (attributed to André M. Landry Jr., a marine biologist at Texas A&M University at Galveston), the latter receives enormous publicity in popular media and is usually described with fear-inducing narratives woven with stock footage of iconic imagery of shark feeding frenzies and bloody water accompanied by ominous music.

25 Along with the persistent images of biological threats, physical features that are part of oceans are also presented as threatening, given that marine weather and ocean behavior is tricky to predict and never to be taken lightly when ocean-bound. Oceans are where hurricanes are born, which invade terrestrial systems and tear through communities, often traumatizing the lives of many and costing billions of dollars in destruction, as the aftermath of Katrina in 2005 in New Orleans, among so many others has proven. The oceans also “cause” tsunamis, inundating coastal areas and re-shaping coastlines in what amounts to an instant, as seen in the devastating tsunami in the Pacific on December 2004 and along the south-central Chilean coast in February 2010. Although tsunamis are actually caused by a sudden crustal shift, i.e. an earthquake, that happens to occur in or near an ocean basin, as happened on the Burma Plate near Sumatra, Indonesia on that day in 2004, the oceans transfer that energy through the water and it is thus seen as an oceanic phenomenon that can result in wide-spread devastation. The resulting inundation around the Indo-Pacific rim, for example, killed an estimated 230,000 people11 in a single day, not including those who died of injury, disease and lack of resources in its aftermath. Historical narratives and geology both indicate that such events have been ongoing, and in fact quite frequent in the active Indo-Pacific region throughout Earth’s history, and will without a doubt continue (Bryant 2001). In general, the oceans are perceived as outside of territory, impossible to continually monitor, and where states compete for dominance through various social institutions. Marine space is generally considered inhospitable to permanent settlement, vulnerable, and resistant to regulation, i.e. the “smooth” space as outlined by Deleuze and Guittari (1988) that cannot be bounded (Steinberg 1999). These features position the seas as an unwieldy threat; and yet we are drawn to its shores, with proximity to the sea increasingly implying higher social status. Evidence of the popularity and social stratification of living near the sea are that coastal homes in developed countries are priced well outside of the range for “average” household incomes (and with many insurers refusing the risk and denying policies). Beaches and coasts, particularly in the tropics, are enormously popular vacation sites, something many insular developing countries rely on and hope to expand, evidenced by the resort hotels lining the shores near urban centers of the Bahamas, Jamaica, Mexico, Thailand, and countless others, as well as significant investments into socio-political interest-groups and trade organizations spearheading policy committees to regulate the shoreline’s burgeoning development12. An entire industry of floating hotels such as the ships of Carnival, Norwegian Cruise Lines and Princess, have successfully commodified being at sea, promising a relaxing, unique, elegant experience, safe adventure, access to exotic, romantic environments and freedom from the drudgeries and routines of every-day life. Advertisements for cruises and insular resorts flash coral reefs and idyllic palm-lined beaches, promising pockets of civilization, familiar amenities and safety amid a lush, exotic and wild nature.

11 The exact number remains unknown and varies in news reports; however all estimates found range between 220,000 and 250,000 people.

12 Caribbean Community Information and Communication Technology for Development ;

26 These points all discuss the psychological or sociological impacts the imaginations of marine spaces as they are constructed through what is seen, or “felt” and heard about these places, however the economies built around the seas undeniably play a major role in how we gauge its importance. Despite the impossibility of actual ownership and settlement at sea, important and expensive infrastructures and industries are also influential in how we value this space. Basic infrastructures such as ports and marinas, dredging and offshore engineering operations, vessel-building and marine engineering, the many enterprises and individuals that can be grouped as part of the merchant marine industries (captains, crew, maritime insurance systems, shipping agents, export/import industries, loading engineers), resource extraction industries (fisheries, offshore oil production), cruise ship industries, maritime legal consortiums, coastal tourism and marine recreation development (beach resorts, recreational and marine sports industries), coastal protection, enforcement and navigation industries, marine construction and salvage contractors, naval industries, and remote sensing industries, etc. likely influence what we perceive as relevant and necessary given that any proximity to or engagement with this space inevitably requires our use or application of usually more than one of these industries, whether one is directly aware of that or not (Steinberg 2001). The social constructs of the seas therefore elicit an odd mixture of emotionally-charged, idealized, vilified and glorified perceptions of ocean space brought about by in-place experience, external influences, real economically-oriented infrastructures, idealized images, and internalized expectations that are filtered and reflected in different ways among different cultures and regions. It would therefore seem both naive and unrealistic to presume that imaginations of ocean space have little or no influence on how we treat or regulate, or study these spaces.

Science at Sea The clearly “bi-polar” attitudes of oceans and coasts, and our relationship to the resources extracted from it could explain part of the difficulty in making decisions about coastal and marine systems, no less how to study them. The ocean has been conceived in many different scientific geographies: biological and ecological geography of the seas (Longhurst 1998; Spalding et al 2001), geography of water masses, ocean currents, air-sea interactions, and transfer of technologies and methods of direct and remote observation (Brown et al 1989; Deacon 1971; Jacques 2006; Peterson et al 1996), physical geography of subsurface topography (aka bathymetry) and subsurface geology and geomorphology (aka marine geology) (Rothery and Wright 2004). The position of the sea as special or exceptional, warranting academic institutions and university departments devoted to the singular mission of ocean science, has made studying them a social engagement defined by inclusion in an exclusive network of peers. Nevertheless, among all influences of bias and the importance of social networks, the most fundamental factor in studying marine systems is the physical barrier of access in a very simple material–environmental sense. Expensive equipment, specialized skills and significant resources are required to scientifically engage in this environment. It is often said in documentaries and educational programs that we know more about the Moon than about

27 our oceans. Although we have reached the bottom of the Mariana’s Trench (the deepest place on Earth) near the Challenger Deep a total of three times, only one of those expeditions was manned (Jacques Piccard and Don Walsch descended to 35,814 ft in the Trieste in 196013). Coastal areas have been easier to dominate, however we still remain effectively powerless against severe storms and other maritime threats associated with global change such as sea level rise and rising average ocean temperatures. Despite covering 71% of the surface of Earth, the oceans are among the most poorly-understood spaces in the solar system, and although much of the blame can be focused on the simple practicalities of accessing it, part of the responsibility can be given to the social influences that are rooted in issues of geopolitical power and preference. The costliness of entering these extreme environments are easily imaginable, considering that marine research in general carries a high price-tag given specialized corrosive-resistant equipment, investments in vessels and transportation and specialized academic training, along with requisite skilled labor. Large-scale research endeavors involving the sea require deep pockets and therefore usually mandates corporate or state-endorsed sponsorship, and as such, research goals must implicitly accommodate, or be in some way aligned with the goals or missions of the financial sponsors. The idea of a geography of the oceans is still not distinctly defined, mainly appropriated within the ocean sciences because of the emphasis on the requirements of empirical knowledge about this space if we are to technologically conquer, understand and manage it. Although it is gaining ground among those who identify themselves as active social scientists in the field (e.g. Cinner 2007, Steinberg 2001; Walley 2004), human geographic work in marine space does not remotely approach the volume of work done in what could be classified as physical geographies of the seas (e.g. oceanography, marine geology, fisheries and ecosystems science), which is also reflected in the funding emphases in these sub-fields. The majority of funding of ocean-related science goes into advancing practical technologies of observation such as remote and direct sensing devices, improved vessel construction, and potential military and defense-related applications. For goals of theoretical and conceptual advancements, current funding priorities include impacts and indicators of global climate change and the relationship of air-sea interaction with global change, ocean circulation and weather modeling projects, and fisheries. These categories are a weak arbitration of the variety efforts that go into ocean sciences, given they are all inherently linked, however the current focus clearly is honed in on these specific fields, which in the marine sciences are further split into research on climate and weather variability, fisheries dynamics, regional coastal ecosystem processes, local and global human interactions with the coastal environment, hurricanes and extreme marine weather (ocean warming), and integrated ocean observations especially now intensely focused on tsunami warning systems (Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies, 2009 Annual Report14). The ocean is a space that regardless of one’s exposure to it, has influenced human development, consumption, and research and continues to play an enormous role in terrestrial existence alone given the

13 University of Delaware College of Marine Studies ()

14 UM/RSMAS/CIMAS

28 global social institutions that have been built around it for the purposes of securing resource extraction, communicating goods across long distances, and recreation (Fernández-Armesto 2006; Jacques 2006; Spooner 1983; Steinberg 1999, 2001). The ocean and coasts occupy a special place in the mind of those who live and work in this space, and can be viewed from a distinct geographical perspective that embeds attachment, hope and connection. On land, human civilization has confidently taken over and regardless of “natural” events such as tornadoes or flooding and drought, we are confidently in control of terrestrial environments; but while at sea, humans are vulnerable and clumsy, ill-equipped and ultimately helpless, most literally “entering the food chain.” Because of the physical and material conditions that limit and control our access to ocean-space, the way that it is studied, perceived, and exploited is distinctly different from terrestrial settings (Lambert et al. 2006; Rozwadowski 2004, 2005; Steinberg 2001). Ocean space also inherently contains particular difficulties as an object of embodied knowledge and representation (Connery 2006; Steinberg 1999b; Wright 1999) and governance (Costanza 1999; Giordano 2003; Nichols 1999; Sloan 2002). At the same time, even while the world-ocean is connected in one “unified” hydrological system, specific regional seas pose distinct research questions and management challenges, both because of geophysical variations and because distinct proximal terrestrial cultures and institutions have a large role in shaping prevailing imaginations, uses, and regulatory structures of adjacent ocean-spaces (Jacques 2006; Steinberg 2001). Similarly, spatial knowledges of the ocean are impacted by the social and economic networks through which one interacts with the sea (St. Martin 2009). Not only do the technological limits of studying ocean space dictate the methods of science conducted there (and thus the conclusions or outcomes), but these physical attributes are subsumed within distinct ideologies that, in turn, generate and reproduce a specific network of ocean scientists that is both discrete and exclusive, with specific institutions that alternately facilitate and hinder communication across geopolitical boundaries (Deacon 1971; Dobbs 2005; Rozwadowski 2005). Maps and the various physical descriptions of oceans, for example, as flat and featureless or filled with threatening beasts––or resources––have also played a distinct role in producing the social construction of this environment, and its lore (Jeans 2004; Steinberg 2001; St. Martin 2009) as well as the procedures for conducting ocean science and its theoretical directions (Deacon 1971; Peterson et al 1996). Whether one uses remotely sensed data, surface research ships, or submersible vessels and scuba diving, the ocean is a difficult and expensive arena in which to conduct research. As a result, ocean researchers operate in very tight networks that produce their own located knowledges, but which at the same time, aspire to make universal truth-claims through their connections with other scientists as they participate in an exclusive, global matrix of networks.

These literatures all in some way demonstrate how science is not a disembodied, objective process that is culturally and historically unattached to the places in which it is made and consumed. Rather, especially in marine settings, specific geographic elements influence the scope of scientific knowledges and the ways in which they are applied to policy through claims to certainty and universality. Dobbs (2005) illustrates how all three theoretical elements––scientific fact creation, situated

29 knowledges and practices, and the problems inherent in the study of marine space––were in action in the early history of reef science, and tells of the contentions between Darwin’s and Agassiz’s ideas about coral reef formation and how the consequences and outcomes were tied to new developments in technology and burgeoning scientific endeavors devoted to these ecosystems. This research takes a similar conceptual approach to contemporary reef science, fusing insights from science studies and the geographies and histories of science about the cultures and locatedness of scientific practices, facts, and knowledge–flows among the epistemic community of scientists, policy-makers, and managers to identify common understandings that can guide reef conservation policy. The combination of the importance of the location of scientific processes (Livingstone 2003), the rapid dissemination of knowledges (Shapin 1998) and the associated debates surrounding scientific uncertainties (Latour 1987, 2004), makes understanding science in place and the networks that judge it crucial as one seeks to understand how science is mobilized to inform policy in these alien marine environments. The embedded cultural structures, socio-political norms and expectations, and the relative difficulty in making solid claims pertaining to predictions in the marine environment have the potential to, and often do provision privilege and pre-determine inclusion (and exclusion) of both individuals and knowledge. This co-constitutive and iterative nature of science in place and of place ripples throughout those material necessities that are fundamental to generating knowledge (e.g. funding, professional appointments, etc.) and can serve to stifle or appropriate competing knowledges and bottom-up efforts or modifications.

1.4 Case Examples

! Two cases are provided as examples to demonstrate how these three theoretical foundations combine to generate scenarios that can lead to divergent understandings and a crisis of knowledge. Contradictions are evident between published accounts of factual evidence, scientific contentions and debate, and management strategies being implemented in marine ecosystems, particular coral reefs. These examples also demonstrate why the socially-oriented theoretical perspectives applied in this work are appropriate in negotiating environmental science and knowledges regarding coral reefs. The contextual importance of social forces in the development and perceptions of environmental understanding can provide some insight as to why revealing subjectivities would be informative to finding appropriate management devices, and how narratives and anecdotes in small scientific networks can influence the ideas and understandings about larger and more broadly encompassing issues. Cases that demonstrate their connection to the theoretical concepts engaged in this work provide the inductive anecdotes that justify the theoretical foundations applied in this work. These also show why the statements used in the research instrument were relevant to larger and wide-spread issues regarding reef conservation and research efforts. Although arguably a local anecdote, the particular dynamic and different field work experiences across geographic scales defines research and management goals. Therefore the material and social dynamics involved in the origin and evolution of paradigms in

30 reef regions are common, and emerge in two main ways. The first is that scientific inconsistencies are often a result of observation limits, especially in terms of time and consistency. Ability to access the environment is an underlying theme in any marine environment, which is also significant given that scientific validity is often grounded in some repeated measured variable. The second consistent message in discussions about reefs, whether implicit or explicit, is that geographic difference matters on all scales and can only be described if there is some understanding of the proximal human interactions. In a strictly logistical sense in terms of dealing with the particular physical properties of coastal environments, the relative challenges of human habitation by the sea and cultural distinctions, albeit obvious to some, are important to highlight given the power it has as a limiting factor on scientific accuracy and precision (e.g. Dobbs 2005). Conclusions about marine systems are inherently rich with assumptions that in part also demonstrate the difficulties in generating certainties from challenging environments but that emerge as being sound within complex social networks that accept and communicate these ideas. Ultimately these case studies contain aspects of the three underpinning theoretical foundations described in 1.3, but also demonstrate the difficulty in not only getting at solutions for marine environmental management, but also the confusion that can result for what is thought to be well-understood knowledges about the marine environment. These cases also demonstrate the practicalities that emerge if one is to study the coastal systems, and the exclusion and privileged access that are simply attendant to such endeavors. The presumption that peer-reviewed published work is a true reflection of fact disregards the social influences and power relationships inherent in the scientific process, from research development to final publication, and can serve to convolute understandings, especially outside of the epistemic community. Finally, these examples also reveal how subjectivities are embedded within the ideas generally thought of as fact, and how these are also connected to issues of climate change, society and the value-driven connections and deep-seated desires to manifest even the most scientific and objective imaginations of place.

1.4.1 Hurricanes: “Good” or “bad” for reefs? The first example demonstrates the inherent complexity in answering scientific questions regarding how hurricanes impact a reef region. This example shows the difference between messages in published work and what is seen in the field. The contradictions serve to fuel tensions within the debates and reveal how geographic difference and periods of observation in the marine environment also influence imaginations and constructed realities of what people believe to be happening in the environment as data exists to support a variety of interpretations. This example shows how science is local and is contingent on observation frequency and time scales. During the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons in the U.S. (June 1 - November 30), the state of Florida was affected in some way by eight hurricanes. Of those, South Florida Atlantic reef systems felt the effects of hurricanes Frances (25 Aug. - 8 Sept. 2004), Jeanne (13 Sept. - 28 Sept. 2004), Katrina (23-30 Aug., 2005), Rita (18-26 Sept., 2005), and Wilma (15-25 Oct., 2005) (National Hurricane Center http:// www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml). In general, it is believed or often said that hurricanes are the main

31 Figure 1.1: Damaged Reefs: An uprooted stand of Acropora palmata (aka elkhorn coral) near Key Largo, Florida after hurricane Wilma in 2005. Branching species often get chopped up and pieces scattered around the main colonies. Broken colonies die if conditions are stressful because of other factors such as coastal pollution. It is assumed that too many environmental pressures have resulted in a barren rubble seascapes made of once prolific reefs as those seen on the right, including sewage outflow. However to accurately predict the trajectories of recovery or decline from hurricanes is simply not feasible with varying patterns of coastal use and global pressures such as climate change. causes of reef destruction, even as early as the 1950s (Goreau 1959). Although several studies since have focused on the patterns of destruction and recovery from hurricanes, the overall message is that hurricanes can generate a severe environmental crisis across a large geographic area from which reefs can recover, although most often do not (Fig.1.1) (Connell 1997; Rogers 1993). And, regardless of what happens, there is little that can be done to shield them from the effects, even if circumstances are predictable. There are abundant rubble storm layers in just about any paleo-reef, which provide geologic evidence that storms have been influencing coral growth patterns and species dominance for hundreds of millions of years. The question for many is not whether the reef area recovers or returns, but rather what exactly will be growing in these areas. Reef scientists are generally concerned that more frequent or more destructive storms, as is predicted with anthropogenic climate change discourses, could reduce the biodiversity on reefs to mainly stony mounded species, and that only if we are lucky, will not result in Scleractinians, i.e. stony reef-building corals, becoming increasingly scarce, and reefs ecosystems becoming dominated by soft corals and leafy algae (Blanchon et al 1997; Dollar and Tribble 1993; Gardner et al 2005). This issue therefore is also mostly driven by some deep desire to retain the coral reefs that represent ideal nature and the pristine and perfect “rainforests of the sea” that exist in remote reefs not drastically influenced by human stressors. Despite claims of certainty regarding the destructive power of hurricanes on reefs, how much a storm affects these ecosystems, and if they recover, has been ultimately determined to depend on a combination of factors that themselves have not been settled as to their exact role in ecosystem growth. Although not limited to these considerations, questions that are relevant include the scale (i.e. spatial expanse) in which damage occurred, the pre-existing condition of the ecosystem, the environmental

32 factors that are present in the study area, and potential stressors acting on the reef during recovery, such as fishing patterns, extreme temperatures, etc. Scale and location are particularly important in such “local” issues given that dominant currents also are suspected to play a significant role in recovery. If there is connectivity among reefs then there is greater likelihood and great potential for dispersal of larvae, or alternatively that such connectivity can also easily transport pollutants. Questions of whether the ecological web contains the necessary biodiversity for potentially rapid ecosystem stabilization [sic] are also important, but extremely difficult to answer. Figure 1.2: Coral Recovery: A fallen stand of Acropora However despite the myriad of factors palmata (elkhorn coral) off of Key Largo, knocked down during hurricane Wilma in 2005 shows signs of re-growth that detract from sweeping (circled area-new growth is about 4 cm in height). assumptions, it is most often stated that Uprooted colonies and knocked off branches often serve to disperse the colonies by this kind of process. If colonies hurricanes in general are bad for such as this would have been exposed to stressful delicate branching species (e.g. Acropora conditions, it may have been too overwhelmed to survive. An absolute answer to whether hurricanes are “good” or sp., staghorn and elkhorn corals) and “bad” for reefs must therefore be discussed in terms of frequent disturbances favor the slow- conditions of place and duration of post-event observation. growing stoney coral-heads (e.g. Diploria sp. aka brain coral). Figure 1.2 shows a broken A. palmata that after only a few years is prolifically budding new branches of colonies from such toppled stands and thereby expanding the area of reef. However there is a demand to determine risk of reefs, especially given current emphases of how to deal with the growing concerns over climate change, development and population. But given the number of variables that influence health, our limited abilities to observe these environments, especially during such destructive events such as hurricanes (even if monitoring was ongoing beforehand), makes it impossible to guess how a hurricane may affect a reef system given the countless variety of ways the factors can come together; but this doesn’t stop us from guessing. These guesses are interpreted as scientific and factual, universal and all-encompassing. What is read in the publications regarding the causation and driving forces of stressors are of great importance to the general literature of reefs. Not because it can be applied in general, but because it adds to the inventory of the variety of circumstances that are found on these systems. These publications are also valuable contributions to better understanding regional geographies. However it is rare to be able to apply the conclusions and results across space because they often do not reflect common circumstances nor are universal observations. In short, conclusions in peer-reviewed publications are not often geographically transferrable, thus often ending with calls for “more science” or leads to conversations about the continuing need to have “ways” to apply science into management. Attempts

33 have been made to consolidate the disparate knowledge and sources of scientific information regarding coral reefs surveys (e.g. Selig and Bruno 2010) and organize the data that has thus far been generated to see where scientists stand on the issues (e.g. Kleypas and Eakin 2007). However, assigning authoritative references on the mainstream scientific research ongoing in reef areas does little else than attach subjective values to issues that were already assumed part of the discourse. The studies derived and created in specific locations are also the most likely candidates to provide the “best available” information for management purposes in that region, and in most marine systems are the only record of environmental conditions for that region, and are often assumed to apply to any reef system. In this circumstance, debate and questioning remains mostly within the network but is leveled as an issue that connects reefs to global change. Coral reefs in this case are seen as both indicator and victims of our actions that have caused the changes in climate and oceans, a perspective that, while arguably accurate, reflects a certain set of intellectual and institutional research priorities and orientations.

1.4.2. Cold Stress Bleaching Event, South Florida, January 2010 In early January of 2010, nearly three weeks of unusually-cold temperatures–– near freezing on some nights–– lingered over South Florida where temperatures rarely venture below 40°F in a typical winter. Data from NOAA buoys on the edge of the Gulf Stream off of Key Largo and Key West showed that corals had endured about twenty days of water temperatures below 65°F, with approximately eight of those days having temperatures of 50°F (NOAA National Data Buoy Center, Long Key buoy data, http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/data/realtime2/LONF1.ocean). With packages of cool water still lingering on the shallow Florida platform by the end of January, survey teams from a variety of organizations set out to look at reefs in the Lower and Middle Keys and returned with reports of widespread bleaching and that many coral that had simply frozen to death, not even having had time to bleach.15 News spread rapidly through the reef researchers in the South Florida region, and by the last days of January, the news hit the public media. Reports rang across the country in newspapers and television reports: wide spread coral death seen across the South Florida platform as a result of the cold. With the first week of February promising calm seas, plans were made to take a look at the reported damage at one’s own field sites. It was said that the entire area was assumed to have been affected, but data gathered in field sites north of Key Largo showed that there was a distinct geographic pattern to reef destruction, one which was not mentioned in the reports: reefs that were seaward of the north-south coastal navigation channel seemed to show no signs of stress from the extensive cooling, while reefs on the shallow platforms and close to shore and in high-traffic areas showed significant damage. Tissue was seen sloughing off as hair-like streamers of mucous from the skeletons. The coral, it

15 Staff Writer (2010) THE EVERGLADES: Cold took heavy toll on Florida wildlife. Miami Herald, Feb. 7, 2010. A1.; and Morgan, Curtis (2010) Winter chill takes toll on Florida Keys coral: Scientists begin early assessments of the damage on marine life, but initial reports are bleak. L.A. Times Jan 31, 2010.

34 was supposed, did not even have time to bleach, but literally froze to death in the rapidly falling temperatures and windy days during those first weeks in January. Although this news item was inevitably used to engage in stories regarding global climate change, the story that the media missed was of the local human-environment interaction with reefs in the context of a particular geography of the area. Failing to mention that the corals that were showing the greatest death rate were most likely those already suffering from chronic anthropogenic stress, served to detract from the importance of the sources that makes them vulnerable to thermal stress and global change in the first place. By ascribing the problem to the large and unmanageable problem of climate change, the “smaller” or local problems could be effectively exonerated. Not only does this, whether intended or not, the re-direction of the paradigmatic emphasis (and implications that we are all victims rather than partly to blame), the variety of mis-information or mis-understandings that can result inevitably generates a reaction of suspicion when locally-oriented policy ideas are introduced that seem punitive to local user-populations, who are already perceived as “victims” as framed by invoking global problems over which they have no control. Despite the unresolved issues that generate uncertainty about the dynamics and underlying causes behind coral reef degradation, scientists and aligned policy-makers have been advocating policies with irreversible implications, from instituting marine protected areas that would affect community livelihoods (e.g. Campbell 2007; Nichols 1999) to performing “triage” operations that would write off the destruction of some environments as “inevitable” (e.g. Dean 2008). Coral reef research thus points to a contradiction in the practice of science and what is expected to provide answers to questions of policy: On the one hand, the dynamics and conventions of scientific practice and advancement innately contain a level of uncertainty that simply cannot satisfy the demand for absolute truth, and renders moot any steps towards finding policy solutions –– especially those that apply to the commons (Demeritt 2006); and yet while it is precisely this uncertainty that is necessary to drive science forward, it is often the rationale for inaction in policy, given particular financial and political risks (as has been the case with global climate change (e.g. Arvai et al. 2006; Demeritt 2001; Thompson 2006; Thompson et al. 2006)). Guiding this research is the belief that the current level of contention (and, hence, in many cases, policy inaction) in coral reef conservation is due not to a lack of knowledge, but rather to a misuse and mis-emphasis of the scientific uncertainty and goals of “universalizing” scientific understandings that cannot be universally applied. A significant part of this uncertainty is simply a consequence of working in marine spaces, where materialities and imaginations generate additional challenges to progress in conservation. This work attempts to find a different way to negotiate issues of environmental concern in which there is an expressed call for action, yet which the requisite scientific practice of truth-seeking––the shaping and reshaping of paradigms––cannot accommodate.

35 2. CORAL REEFS: ECOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHIES

Coral reefs have a deep geological history, which exacerbates the tendency to be concerned regarding their future and the impact that humans have on this ecosystem. Tropical coral reef ecosystems are the most biodiverse on Earth by phyla (Carr et al 2003; Riegl et al 2009) and are found mainly in shallow water and warm marine settings, which generally consigns them to within 30°N and 30°S latitudes (Fig. 2.1). Reefs that lie outside of this latitudinal zone, such as those in Bermuda, are usually a result of persistent warm ocean currents that expand the typical geographic range. For reasons explained in the following paragraphs, reefs require sunlight (and by extension, clear water), which results in their occupying mainly shallow marine shelves, coastal zones, and marine platforms generally less than 100 meters in depth, and most often shallower than 50 meters. The need for sunlight and water clarity is vitally important to these systems and explains why they are not found near areas that experience, for example, high sedimentation from river outflows (e.g. Orinoco River outflow inhibits reef growth) or areas of frequent or persistent coastal pollution.

Figure 2.1. Location of coral reefs. The red dots represent major reef-zones of the world. (NOAA Ocean Service Education )

Reefs cover a total of about 284,300 square kilometers (km2) on Earth’s surface, amounting to a little less than 0.055 % of the entire surface area of Earth (510,072,000 km2). The largest coral reef area is in the Indo-Pacific region and covers 261,200 km2, which is 91.8% of all coral reefs. The remaining is split between the Western Atlantic and Caribbean, which has 21,600 km2, or 7.6% of the global reefs, and the Eastern Pacific, which with 1,600 km2 hosts the remaining 0.6%(Spalding et al 2001). Such a relatively tiny area occupied by reef ecosystems at first gives the impression that these are minor or marginal ecosystems, however when put in context of their relevance in Earth’s history they become a significant facet of environmental research and important scientific tools. Because of the vast volumes of limestone these creatures have deposited over their evolutionary history, ancient reef

36 structures provide comparative models in environmental research that seek to understand global change. Reefs uplifted throughout the Earth’s orogenies now compose large parts of the Rockies and the Alps and provide clues as to crustal movements and rates of climate change in past environments. Buried systems are also widely studied and of great interest given these subsurface structures serve as reservoirs for the largest stores of hydrocarbon deposits on Earth, opening an entirely different direction of social importance not within the scope of this work. Nevertheless, because reefs are restricted to a relatively narrow range of bio-physical conditions, their presence and absence in the geologic record and in modern environments indicates particular environmental circumstances and possible scenarios that are informative to queries of global change and to affirm the characteristics of anomalies. Explained in detail below, the sensitivity and rapid response to their environment, coral provide a convenient geochemical measuring stick as they grow, weaving into their limestone structures the ambient environmental conditions as measurable fluxes of chemical ratios and isotopes. Such high sensitivities to environmental conditions inevitably result in small but significant variations in interpretations of what exactly the different anomalies seen in coral growth may mean. As a tool, therefore, coral provide a biologically written record of not only their evolutionary history, but also of paleoenvironments, which is of great interest in the business of climate change. To clarify how reefs are connected to the debates over global warming and resource management, some core foundations of coral ecology are introduced. These provide a basis for contextualizing the grounds for the competing discourses that are presented in the research instrument. Basic concepts in coral reef ecology and geographies described in the following sections can therefore provide explanatory foundations of the wide variety of discourses expressed in the epistemic community of coral reef professionals.

2.1 Coral Ecology

The coral animal lives only on the outermost surface of the coral structure as a thin veneer composed of a collection of individual polyps (Figure 2.2). The first coral, anthozoids that produced mineralized shells, are generally believed to have evolved in the late Cambrian or early Ordovician Period, given their emergence at about 460 million years ago. Hermatypic or reef-building corals are made up of a colony of individual polyps, all of which under ideal biological conditions host single-celled photosynthetic symbionts called Figure 2.2: A close-up of a coral zooxanthallae that live in their tissue. Ultimately, coral survival is colony: Montastrea sp. is a stony coral that is common in reefs of the Bahamas directly related to their relationship with the zooxanthellae and Florida. Each polyp is about the size of a pencil eraser. The structure is symbionts and the geochemical characteristics of their made up of a colony of individual environment. These symbionts not only give the coral its polyps. The mustard color of Monstastrea is a result of its symbiotic coloration but also provide the colony with the extra energy it zooxanthallae.

37 requires to make its calcium carbonate (CaCO3) skeleton and build prolifically and eventually host its complex ecological web in its structures. The photosynthetic process that occurs in the tissue, thanks to the symbionts, essentially removes CO2 out of solution, which increases pH and creates the proper basic chemical environment to precipitate the limestone. Calcium carbonate is directly affected by dissolved carbon dioxide, shown by:

+2 - CaCO3 + CO2 (aq) + H2O (l) ⇌ Ca + 2 [HCO3]

The equation describes that when partial pressure of dissolved CO2 goes up, the reaction will be driven to the right, which results in dissolution of limestone (CaCO3) into its components. When CO2 in solution is removed (the service provided by the zooxanthellae) or an abundance of bicarbonate and calcium ions exists, as it generally does in tropical seas, the reaction will ideally be driven to the left, precipitating limestone. The preferential direction depends on known relationships in thermodynamics. Scientists therefore expect that rising CO2 levels, which manifest in oceans as higher partial pressures, acidification, and warming sea-surface temperatures will make it difficult for coral to precipitate their skeletons (Marubini et al 2008). Under ideal conditions, coral structures can grow about 1 cm3 each year. When experiencing environmental stress over some length of time, the coral creature will expel the zooxanthellae from its tissue, becoming transparent and revealing its white skeletal structure, a process called bleaching (Fig. 2.3). This phenomenon is quite often mentioned in mass media articles and is understood to be an indicator of stressful a. b. and unsustainable environmental conditions. While without their symbionts during this bleached period, coral do not grow but can be generally described as in stasis, just surviving, having lost the c. d. necessary metabolization usually provided by the photosynthesizers. Coral can recover from bleaching by re-introducing the zooxanthellae into its tissue and resuming normal growth. However, this can only

Figure 2.3: Bleaching in coral: in (a.) A. cervicornis happen if conditions return to an acceptable (staghorn coral), (b.) A. palmata (elkhorn coral). This range within a reasonable period of time, bleaching was caused by very warm water temperatures during the summer 2009 in S.Florida; the colony in b. the duration of which varies. If stressful completely recovered by January 2010 (c.) bleached patch conditions continue, the coral eventually (20cm) on a Montastrea sp. during the summer 2009 in S.Florida and (d.) bleached Diploria (brain coral). This head dies (as seen in Figure 2.3d.). Despite the likely froze to death in the cold snap of January 2010 in South loss, the hard structure provides real estate Florida. for other creatures, algae, or possible re- colonization. This highly visible stress-reaction contributes to the idea of coral reefs as a “canary in the coal mine” given they seem to respond quite rapidly to environmental change. Bleaching makes coral

38 highly susceptible to disease and death when subjected to circumstances they would otherwise easily survive. It is clear that a relationship between reef health and its ability to recover from stressful events exists, usually referred to as resilience. Attempts at understanding how to gauge reef health and resilience has indicated that it may have a positive relationship with biodiversity. Reproductive success of coral is also highly contingent on environmental circumstances, and calls into question the issue of geographic connectivity between reefs and the conditions of its immediate surroundings because of the ways in which coral reproduce, namely by budding and spawning (Jones et al 2009). The asexual reproductive strategy of budding requires a healthy environment and occurs when a mature polyp in a colony, such as those shown in Figure 2.2, will “sprout” a clone of itself, which eventually separates and grows among the colony, building its own calice alongside its progenitor. In spawning, coral polyps will synchronize the release of waxy spherical egg-packets and clouds of sperm into the water column during a certain time of year, which usually occurs around a full moon in August or September. Extensive plumes of reproductive material rise to the surface and get mixed by currents. When the egg and sperm of compatible species meet, they become larvae that travel as plankton in ocean currents for days or weeks, the duration depending on species and environmental conditions. In ideal circumstances, the larvae will then settle on hard-ground, given its availability, and attach to the bottom, eventually budding into large colonies given suitable environmental conditions. These spawning events have been found to be affected by environmental changes, but scientists are certain that they are timed around lunar cycles and water temperatures and so pin events to windows of spawning likelihood. The focus on the transport models of larvae led scientists to question the relevance and impacts of geographic distribution of reef regions in terms of how down-current areas may be affected by activities in up-current areas. This direct bio-geographic connection points to implications of responsible behavior and geopolitical cooperation of countries that are “connected” by ocean currents (Jones et al 2009). The details on how important this connectivity may be is still a major area of reef science research and has enlisted the expertise of physical oceanographers, biologists and tropical ecologists (Cowen et al 2006; Roberts 1997).

2.2 Reef Growth and Environmental Connections

Although all stressors that are present in the ambient environment of reefs can be argued as important, reef health and growth is ultimately and primarily dependent on water quality –– the physical environment in which reefs live and grow. This measure determines whether the opportunity of healthy and sustainable reef growth can happen in the first place. Coral symbionts require sunlight for photosynthesis and the coral polyps can “choke” if overwhelmed by suspended sediments, thereby making water clarity an influential delimiter. Another determinant is that water temperatures should not be too warm or too cold for extended periods of time. Appropriate chemical components and ratios in solution are required to properly drive the chemical reactions necessary to build and maintain its

39 structures. Setting the stage for reef growth is therefore primarily requisite “average” ambient water quality and hard ground to allow the organism to attach. Biological connections in which reefs exist provide the next level of analysis in terms of understanding their importance in environmental interpretations. The ecological component crucial to reefs are the herbivores that collect in reef areas, such as parrotfish and sea urchins (Fig. 2.4). Especially in eutrophic environments, herbivores are a central node in the ecological web as they both keep the algal growth in check, and provide a source of protein for predatory fish, which in turn contribute to local and Figure 2.4: Important reef herbivores. The stoplight parrotfish (Sparisoma vetula) at left; and long-spined sea-urchin (Diadema global fisheries. Loss of these keystone antillarum) at right. creatures in reef areas through both mortality events and overfishing has resulted in measurable declines of reef cover and a predominance of light-stealing and choking leafy algae. Herbivores on reefs are therefore crucial to reef health and must be in some equilibrium relationship to secure reef maintenance and growth and but also resilient enough to respond to rapidly changing environmental stressors of coastal pollution and resource extraction. A third delimiter in reef growth is its geographic relationships which also defines whether reefs are categorized as fringing, barrier or atoll. The variables that impinge on the ecological suitability and potential expanse of reefs in any region are often defined by proximity to land-masses and morphologies although do not always follow such expectations (Figure 2.5). Given the enormous variation in environmental conditions of reef regions, grand generalizations of how reefs “typically” appear in the environment are too broad to apply to an individual reef, yet some general observations can be made

Figure 2.5: Reef Morphologies: Reefs vary in both geospatial relationships and species dominance. The branching elkhorn species Acropora palmata (left) indicates a well-circulated and fairly stable environment, but in this case is found well landward of the shelf-edge. Why this stand is growing and thrives in this particular spot is counter to what is known about these species. Patch reefs as the one shown on the right are common in protected shelf and lagoonal environments.

40 about the regional geographic trends. In general, the windward sides of islands, especially if they are proximal to shelf-edges where nutrient-rich, well-oxygenated water upwells onto the shelves, supports prolific reef growth dominated by extensive spurs of fast-growing branching species reaching towards the edge of the slopes. Leeward sides and shelf-interiors also support reef growth. These generally appear as attenuating barrier reefs or fringing spurs that break off into lagoonal patch reefs scattered across sea-grass prairies and shallow banks of fine-grained sands, which towards land become dominated by mangrove systems, or sandy beaches. Such consistent morphological trends in growth can only be loosely applied but have become useful in identifying environmental anomalies while also revealing ecological complexities and geographic specificities (Murdoch & Aronson 1999; Stoddard 1973, 1986).

2.3 Biogeography of Reefs

The functional subdivisions in biogeographic regions for reefs are generally considered aligned with Wilkinson (2008). Although these regions are usually more generally defined (Fig 8), the more accurate bio-geographies below reveal the complexity inherent in regional reef geographies: (The letters following the category correspond with the regions in Figure 2.6) 1. The Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (A); 2. The ROPME Sea Area (The Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea); (A); 3. East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique and South Africa); (A); 4. South-West Indian Ocean Island States: Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Réunion, Seychelles; (A & I-P); 5. South Asia: Bangladesh, Chagos, India, Maldives and Sri Lanka; (I-P); 6. South-East Asia (I-P); 7. East and North Asia (China, Honk Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan); (I-P); 8. Australia and Papua New Guinea (I-P); 9. South West Pacific: Fiji, New Caledonia, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu (O); 10. Polynesia Mana Node Countries: Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Niue, Kiribati, Tonga, Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna (O); 11. Micronesia and American Samoa (O); 12. Hawaii and United States Pacific Remote Island Areas (Baker, Howland, Palmyra, Kingman, Jarvis, Johnston, Wake) (O); 13. Ecosystems in the U.S. Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico (WAC); 14. Northern Caribbean and Western Atlantic (WAC); 15. Mesoamerican Region (O, WAC); 16. Lesser Antilles: French West Indies, Netherlands Antilles, Anguilla, Antigua, Grenada, Trinidad and Tobago (WAC); 17. Ecosystems in Southern Tropical America: Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Panamá and Venezuela (O, WAC).

41 Biogeographic Regions of Reefs

A WAC A O I-P

Western Atlantic & Africa (A) Indo-Pacific (I-P) Oceania (O) Caribbean (WAC)

• Includes reefs of the Red Sea and Persian • South Pacific island • Reefs of Indonesia and groups including the Gulf the Indian Ocean, • Lesser and Greater Marshall Islands, the Antilles, Barbados. • Reefs of the eastern Comoros, Seychelles, Cook Islands, Fiji Geographic coast of Africa such as Mauritius Island Groups, • Mesoamerican and Extent those of Zanzibar and • Australia and the Hawaiian Island Chain South American reefs Pemba. Great Barrier Reef • Eastern Pacific • South Florida and the • Cape Verde (GBR), Papua New (Galapagos; western Bahamas Islands,and the Guinea Mexico) eastern tropical coast

• Dominated by fringing • mainly of fringing and • mostly fringing and some barrier systems reefs. barrier reefs; atolls • atolls in various (off of Belize, Central • extremely variable common as well. and South America) General regional differences, stages of formation • general health is mixed (fringing, barrier, Large expansive Characteristics however all suffering and as is development • of Reefs from over-exploitation mature atoll) shallow platforms status of the region’s populated by fringing given consistent with nations.. • very high biodiversity chronic social conflicts reef systems. highest biodiversity and poverty. • • biodiversity is minimal.

• Indonesian • Western region = 4, 3 • Caribbean Sea = 2 • Western region = 3 Archipelago = 5 Biodiversity • Eastern region = 2 • West coast of the Index • Eastern region = 1 • Australia, Western Americas, Brazil, US & Pacific, SE Asia = 5, 4 Bahamas = 1, 2

• institutionally- • Commons tenure • Subsistence controlled marine park systems active and • some subsistence and economies systems; some reported to be effective artisenal economies Cultural and community fishing commons tenure. active. Economic • • subsistence use • important in both dominates on these large number of Bearing • commons tenure • practices mixed with subsistence and reefs given limited institutional park institutional systems commercial fishing land-mass areas and systems as “MPAs” economies resources for imports

Figure 2.6: Geographic regions of reefs and general characteristics. The biodiversity index is based on a relative measure of patterns of diversity in scleractinian (modern reef-building) corals. A ranking of 1= low biodiversity (<100 species and a 5 = the highest biodiversity (>500 species). Colored areas above do not imply coral cover, only zones where coral can grow. The small red dots show actual coverage. (Source: Spalding et al 2001)

42 A political pattern emerges in these divisions, which has clear implications in that the “status” of reef health is also a reflection of how they are governed or within what governmental structure the use- regimes affect their condition. For example, the ecosystems of reef categories 9, 10, and 11 are ecologically quite similar, in fact, probably very much the same given their proximal locations and similar cultural geographies of exploitation and long-standing connections in trade. These categorical divisions gain their distinction mainly by geopolitical groupings and jurisdictions. The regional categories in Figure 2.6 shows that these many-faceted divisions can in their most general interpretations be broken separated into distinct geographies that loosely coincide with traditional boundaries of ocean basins. Despite the certain variations within these divisions, it is nevertheless in these larger frames that reefs are commonly compared and contrasted. An important geographic variation that is not explicit in this simplistic trend of ocean basin- centered divisions is that the areas of highest biodiversity are at their maximum in the Indo-Pacific region, centered in the Indonesian archipelago and north-eastern Australia and collectively referred to as the “Coral Triangle”. Biodiversity generally declines as one moves away from this central region of species biodiversity maximum, which is estimated to contain over 500 species of scleractinians (the Order of reef-building corals). The lowest biodiversity index is in the Western Atlantic reefs, which have fewer than 100 different kinds of scleractinian species. Important to note in this case is that biodiversity of a reef is considered more than just the number of reef-building corals. Given the strong connections within the ecological web of coral reefs, which includes fish both predatory and herbivorous, algae, crustaceans, soft coral, bryzoans, and mollusks to name only a few, it is difficult to justify a conclusion about the health of the reef system based only on the number of reef-building stony species (Scleractinians). As mentioned, herbivores are also crucial in this system, as are organisms in higher trophic levels. This complex web based on the balance of herbivores, predators, coral, and algae makes the relationship between biodiversity and resilience difficult to generally define and seemingly impossible to standardize in terms of reef health. Trying to gauge reef health in general across all the variety of geographic settings and environmental variations is one of the leading efforts in reef studies and has led to over a dozen different census and survey instruments that range from crash-course training of the SCUBA-diving general public (Reef Check) to extremely rigorous methods that mandate significant scientific and biological knowledge and training to conduct. Motivated by a two-pronged endeavor––generating a baseline of global reef health status; and better, more extensive monitoring records––the primary efforts of nearly any concerted project to study a reef area is first to take note of fish and coral cover and general condition. Multi-year monitoring results are required to ground predictions and ecological trends, given the importance of accuracy and precision to do so, but have also led to social questions regarding data and monitoring protocols, such as how reliable the variety of observations may be and what parameters are crucial to accurately estimate reef condition and future trends in ecosystem health. Although monitoring reefs has been ongoing since the mid 1900s, the enormous variety of time of observation and variables measured

43 makes consolidating the data tricky at best, especially in the contexts of geographic differences within and among reef regions. Questions of usefulness of the data remain the prime factors of contention citing that some monitoring efforts are conducted by people without formal scientific training and that parameters in rigorous methods are too inconsistent and too inconsistently measured to compare and integrate across the variety of survey protocols. Formalized methods such as the Atlantic Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment Protocol, for example, are attempting to standardize the health status survey process and find a simple, rapid, quantitative but logistically painless method of keeping track of reef condition that does not get mired in excessive details, while the effort of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Center involves a monumental task that compiles and contextualizes data from hundreds of scientists working on reefs worldwide and inherently includes qualitative judgements (Lang 2003; Halpern et al 2008). Yet as efforts are there to standardize the process, geographic difference and associated variations in biodiversity, access and social relevance have made this effort problematic (Ginsburg 1994).

2.4 Ecological Stressors and Monitoring

The variety of ecological stressors in any environment are too numerous to list, however they can easily be divided into geographic of scales. Two main stress-types are discussed in reef environments: 1) systemic, in that an entire region is affected in some way such as a disease or region-wide ocean temperature anomaly, and now the commonly cited acidification problem that is linked to global climate change; and 2) local damage, such as dumping and trash (Figure 2.7) or an anchor chain from a tanker crushes and splits a patch reef, or some particular section of reef shows persistent bleaching or no signs of recovery. These two stressors are connected by time, frequency and spatial relationships. For Figure 2.7 Marine Pollution: Plastic wrapped example, if an area becomes a popular park, localized around living reef colonies. In this case, the impact is not significant, however in regions damage, such as a boat’s anchor uprooting a coral where ocean dumping is common practice, head, could happen often and become wide-spread damage from sea-trash is extensive. enough to be systemic for that region, although local in action and potentially manageable (by installing mooring buoys, for example). Time is necessary to determine if indeed bleaching, for example, is a systemic problem or is simply a response to local use-variations or other physical stress in a particular, restricted area, such as near river outflows. Systemic indicators therefore, are often those stressors on which action is taken because it is seen on a large scale, but are also inherently difficult to orchestrate given the social and geopolitical impediments of exerting control over a large region. Along with region-

44 wide consensus to take action, ample time and investments in data-gathering are important to see what causative factors work on local scales that may influence global observations and conclusions. Observations to collect the threshold amount of data take time and, for logistic reasons detailed in Chapter 1, may also not provide an accurate picture given the potentially narrow focus, especially in marine systems. The discourses regarding ecological stressors for reef environments are therefore mostly described and validated in terms of the scale of stressor and scale of implications. The connections between the environment and the way the corals react to it have significant implications in how these systems are understood, not only biologically, however also in terms of the overall condition of the region, and its possible use-patterns, and forecasts regarding ecosystem health trends (Knowlton 2001). Certain associations are obvious, such as dynamiting a reef, which also happens to be mostly localized. However, like all “smaller” local stressors, when adopted regionally as a common practice, it will result in wide spread destruction and therefore contribute to estimates of reef decline caused by improper fishing practices on globally significant scales (e.g. dynamite fishing has become so widespread around Pemba and Zanzibar in Tanzania that it has become regionally systemic). Alternatively, the aquarium and curio markets amount to a mentionable, albeit minor, global influence of reef health, but also regionally systemic. Other locally-specific injury to reefs includes anchor damage and ship groundings, oil spills and tourist-trampling. Invasive species such as the recent invasion of the omnivorous Pacific lionfish into the Western Atlantic and Caribbean (WAC) region, where they have no “natural“ predators, are topics of media interest, and infuse additional scientific complexities of issues relating to biodiversity and resilience. Scientists believe these problems to exist and they do have significance, but consider them important mainly on local scales in practical terms of population control and regulation enforcement. Efforts, for example, are underway in the Bahamas to control the exploding lionfish populations by featuring tourist-oriented lionfish hunts while some organizations pay out a bounty for every one brought in dead. And although not a fish that is commonly eaten outside of the South Pacific, lionfish recipes and hunting tips have begun to pop up16 on the web. Although each reef region has its particular combination of local stressors, in the most general terms, the main stressors for any reef is anything that negatively affects its ambient water quality, and in coastal waters, inevitably includes land-based sources of pollution, which is among the most serious problems affecting reef environments today. This pollution is usually caused by untreated (or minimally treated) sewage outflows, pesticides and other agricultural waste run-off, excessive sedimentation from excessive rainfall and river outflows, usually associated with loose soils resulting from deforestation on higher ground, trash, and the direct impacts caused by increasing densities of people along the shore and the growth in recreational economies and coastal development that comes with them. Coastal pollution is therefore a main local stressor over the long term, directly contributing to worsening water qualities. Land-based sources are substantial, but at the same time among the most difficult for marine managers to

16 Lionfish Invasion Facts, Hunting, & Recipes website://www.lionfishhunter.com/Lionfish%20Recipes.html

45 influence or control because of their direct connection to land-use regimes, which are considered outside of the jurisdictional realm of managing marine systems. The impact of human use in the environment makes itself visible in the coastal marine systems, and like all other small or “local” factors can over the long-term have a significant effect on reef health and can appear as systemic (e.g. Fig.2.8). That many of the environmental abuses are often poverty-driven sheds some insight on the susceptibility of poor countries that are rich in reef resources to succumb to corruptive influences and turn a blind-eye in favor of infrastructure and capital development. Competition among Caribbean nations, for example, to host a new internationally recognized 500-room hotel resort makes it difficult to turn away a new project only because of the corporations refusal to build appropriate sewage treatment systems. The Figure 2.8: Reefs Degradation across a region such as the one shown here in the central Caribbean Sea is wide, it is said, it can handle the Caribbean are generally understood to be suffering waste. Governmental pressures to comply are often from systemic problems that go beyond the control of managers or a well-intended community. Such quashed with threats of moving the project to another reefs are generally written off given the general unwillingness to invest resources in a system that island-nation that promises no such mandate, or shows no signs of hope in terms of restoration. loosened with kickbacks. Such disparities of development and wealth, and the limited resources inherent in small insular nations has led to relationships based on pure monetary dominance and dependency. Even regional organizations such as the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), which strives also to standardize regulations in an effort to prevent such coercive tendencies, cannot seem to force sustainable practices given their limits of power and the temptations of development. Many poor insular countries will therefore compromise their allegiance to their physical and geopolitical environments for economic gain given that the regional and international structures designed to soften the disparities have failed to render a system that functions as it was intended. Development of land-based economies and systems also boldly appear in the reef environment, as rampant commodification of tropical regions has led to increases in deforestation, livestock populations, and overloaded and outdated waste management systems. Eutrophic environments caused by coastal dumping and agricultural waste-laden river outflows are becoming more persistent in nearly all developing coastal zones, creating circumstances which appear in the coastal marine environment as favoring algal growth. Without the appropriate balance of herbivores that graze on the algae, the usual pattern of coral decline (bleaching followed by death) is seen. Interestingly, debate exists regarding whether too many herbivores can cause damaging bioerosion of reefs. Urchins scrape the algae off of the reef with specially designed teeth that make up Aristotle’s lantern, while parrotfish gnaw at chunks of reefs with their beak-like mouth, digesting the algae that settled in the intricately porous skeleton, and

46 producing fecal plumes of pure white limestone sediment, deposited as pelloidal muds and sands. However there is no evidence that this results in damage, in fact most scientists believe these scraping actions, though somewhat erosive, clear real-estate for coral polyps to attach given they cannot do so on algae-covered stone. Studies show that the benefits to having a healthy herbivore population far outweigh the potential problems that an overpopulation may produce (Birkeland 1997). Furthermore, given that coastal waste and eutrophic coastal waters have become a persistent problem throughout reef regions, it is more likely that for most areas an overpopulation of herbivores is beneficial. Visible increases in algae on reefs implicates an absence of necessary herbivores through overfishing, which is most often the agent of blame for fewer fish. In fact, artisenal and subsistence fishing in developing regions is talked about as the top threat to reefs in the Caribbean and commonly evokes questions of park development or enforcement. And loose commons tenure systems clash with efforts of strict institutional regulations of management, generating heated debates over access and usufruct rights (Trist 1999; Walley 2004). Focusing on artisenal or subsistence overfishing on a reef as the main health-problem, rather than considering other possible causes such as larger and more long-distance fishing operations, or shifting predation patterns resulting from species shifts or weather events, has become a controversial position because of its condemning attitude towards any extractive uses of crippled reef environments. From a social scientific perspective, for example a political ecological view, the problems of overfishing (which include damaging fishing methods) result more from long-distance fishing efforts and poaching of neighboring fishing communities than overuse on local levels, which can have serious consequences for individuals in terms of community status and conflicts with neighboring communities. By eliminating local tenure systems through top-down regulatory structures, despite good intentions, can undermine effective management and criminalize traditional cultural behaviors by creating an open-access system where once there was some level of control via powerful social forces within the community (Neumann 1998; Walley 2004). Even within the loosely organized and informal tenure and community-serving fishing networks that are scattered around the Caribbean, purposeful irresponsible or selfish use of the environment can result in extremely volatile social tensions and is thus not generally a common infraction. Additionally, in smaller towns and villages, cultural and subsistence practices occur with no regard for any top-down systems. This social engagement can be seen in the conch and lobster industries of the Caribbean. Fishermen of the conch and lobstering fishing communities of the southern shores of Jamaica, for example, gather in the evenings in local bars and community areas to discuss what to do about the increasing number of Dominican boats seen while out on their home-turf of the Pedro Banks. In several small fishing village west of Kingston, I witnessed how local subsistence communities contend with regulatory systems while exploring attitudes about the coastal environment and rights of access among subsistence communities in 2005. In this small village, queen conch (Strombus gigas) are fished regardless of seasonal closures. People engaged in this behavior claim they have rights of access through long-standing tradition and do not believe that their use of the fisheries has resulted in factors pointing to decline, but rather that the pressures of large-scale commercial

47 industries combined with poachers from neighboring countries are to blame for the problems seen in the fisheries as a whole. During the season suspension, which is regional as part of a Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES)-related mandate17, they are angered by what they see as large-scale poaching on the Pedro Banks, usually blaming Dominicans and Haitian fishers, the latter of which are not signatories to the convention. Therefore, locals maintain their rights of access, along with their perception that the government is doing nothing to enforce others to honor the closure, and so continue their fishing for subsistence use as needed. CITES prohibits international sale of conch meat during the closed season, so locals fish only small amounts for themselves, sell only to neighbors, local stores, and also often use some for trade, but do not attempt to sell outside their community network (Figure 2.9.). These connections justify more emphasis on understanding the political ecology of coastal regions and recognizing that successful conservation is entirely dependent on how the community perceives a regulatory effort and to what extent they have control over their resources. Fishing has been a difficult aspect to pin down when it comes to reef health as the chicken-and-egg question still

Figure 2.9: A conch fisher in a small remains unresolved: does a healthy reef attract fish or does the Jamaican town near Kingston prepares a presence of fish generate a healthy reef? This basic question is batch of conch-fritter for the village with freshly-caught conch in September, when in itself a debate among managers and scientists and which is the season is officially closed. Rights to also directly related with development status and the potential subsistence fishing consistently override regulatory devices in developing regions. for alternative sources of protein for the community. Fisheries on reefs and associated ecosystems (mangroves, shallow banks and sea-grass beds), therefore, are perceived as significant to ecosystem survival and an extremely complex factor that works on reef environments and also engages questions of fisheries management and economies on all levels. Because of the migratory tendency of most fisheries and the fishers who go significant distances, debates over who is entitled to these fisheries crosses socio-political scales and geopolitical boundaries. Cultural differences in the perception of justice and rights of access confuse matters even further as NGOs, usually from developed countries, often attempt to superimpose their management ideologies onto a tacit management system in a place that functions on an entirely different cultural basis. As has been documented in terrestrial environments (Neumann 1998), park sites are often chosen on the basis of preservation rather than restoration, implying that the system is healthy enough to warrant closely monitored stewardship, yet altering the management protocol from commons property to top-down regulated open access, as parks tend to do, often results in rapid rates of ecosystem decline,

17 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Press Release http:// www.cites.org/eng/news/press/2003/031001_queen_conch.shtml

48 poaching, and increasing crime statistics because of the criminalization of uses that were previously considered acceptable. This then feeds into concerns over enforcement, fining, and management oversight and has been the prime motivating factor in why conservation efforts now generally mandate community approval and involvement before imposing regulatory devices that may create social tension (Neumann 1998). Global changes in atmospheric chemistry are also revealing themselves on reef systems, an issue that is gaining research momentum as its connections to climate change are made increasingly clear. It is also a unifying factor and provides a common ground of conservation concerns in the localized diversity of management concerns. Oceans are warming and oceans are acidifying. Despite the political posturing and blame-games currently playing out in politics regarding global climate change, abundant evidence exists that supports both of those claims; however, how these physical changes affect the multi- dimensional and highly connected ecological and bio-geochemical feedback cycles inherent in the oceans is a matter of great ecological debate among reef scientists (Marubini et al 2008), and considered crucial to understand in contexts of developing effective conservation strategies (Knowlton 2001). Some scientists, often those with strong geological backgrounds, believe that the driver of decline for reefs is not CO2 in the atmosphere, given that during the Cretaceous Period in Earth’s history, reefs were at their most prolific in the geologic record, when levels were roughly seven times greater (Shinn 2010); while others, mostly biologists, maintain that CO2 (and its effects) will be the ultimate ecological assault on these systems (Buddemeir et al 2004; Hughes et al 2003). Regardless of the decision regarding the effects of

CO2, some problems associated with warming have emerged as having serious political connections and grave implications regarding cultural and regional survival. The absorption of CO2 and rising temperatures have resulted in measured sea-level rise, and many nations, particularly the low-lying atoll countries, are expected to literally vanish as sea-levels inch up, with some already forced to leave their homes as salt-water leeches up through the already poor soils, destroying crops and water resources in the lowest-lying atolls of Kiribati. The inability of coral to keep up with rising sea-levels has endangered not only Kiribati, but also Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and the Maldives (Yamamoto and Esteban 2010). The question of climate change and reefs has nevertheless inspired The Center for Biological Diversity in February of 2010 to petition the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to include 82 species of coral––75 Indo-Pacific and 7 Western Atlantic species––on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to join elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) and staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis), citing concerns over CO2 increases in the atmosphere. This petition requires NOAA to look into the issue and begin a status review (http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm). This too has sparked intense debate that is grounded in the fact that essentially nothing can realistically be done on a local level to mitigate the affects of CO2, even if it is determined that it is indeed the problem for reefs given their long histories of endurance despite enormous swings in CO2 in Earth’s history. Opposition to the listing includes the potential problems to obtaining permits to study them once they are listed and especially because the ESA legally pertains only to U. S. waters, others maintain that it is a way to impose just another bureaucratic government hurdle that will make access even more difficult in a time

49 when it is important to collect as much information on the condition of reefs as possible. Some also suspect that it is an issue of increasing top-down territorial control, and is just another exercise to thicken the NGO-petitioner’s legal resumé, especially given that it is just not clear what the condition of the 82 species are, and whether they are truly threatened simply because monitoring data is too scant to specify with that level of detail. Additionally, given the lack of data, it is unclear what sort of effects blind regulations would have on social systems that exist in the regions populated by these threatened coral, and there seems to be little concern among most scientists regarding that question as they debate the premise of ESA listing as defined by the petitioning organization. While many argue about this issue, the consensus seems to point towards the value of listing these species as more of a public-relations move to heighten awareness of the environmental problems suffered by reef environments than any real progress of species conservation, given that most of the coral species that are being considered do not live in U.S. waters18. Regardless of the practical consequences of listing these species, such as the inconvenience that doing so may pose to researchers or communities that use these reefs, ESA listings have legal implications regarding trade of endangered and threatened species, linking it to international legal conventions such as the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). Therefore despite its geographic restriction to the U.S., ESA listing would engage and connect formal avenues for prosecuting those who attempt to buy or sell these species across international lines and buyers and sellers within the U.S. and its territories. Geographic difference and development also play a notable role in social endeavors of reef conservation. The particular problematics involved in convincing strapped economies to invest in their reef environments, where wide-spread and systemic degradation is evident, and not accountable to any single, obvious causative agent, does not bode well for successful support of the effort. Most management initiatives realize that there is justifiable reluctance to attempt restoration in an environment that clearly shows region-wide problems over which there is little or no control. The struggles of how to navigate these problems in attempts at supporting conservation efforts constantly emerge in discussions about priorities and development issues, and seek ways to justify investment in a system that is troubled beyond the abilities of presently established institutions. In areas that are already severely degraded signs of recovery are bleak at best. Ultimately, the lack of financial support makes real management impossible, while the call for access-fees in managed regions for this purpose are rejected as infringements of commons rights for natives (Ransom and Mangi 2010; Trist 2000). At its core, it is the steps towards commodification of reef regions that pose difficult questions of management and access and commons issues. The value of degraded reefs are therefore difficult to envision as short-term profits. Managers who are installed to deal with protected areas that look like Figure 2.8 are trying to come up with a variety of initiatives, promoting research activities in their parks as a way to provide valuable testing grounds for scientists to experiment with strategies to mitigate environmental decline. Because

18 This listing of species outside U.S. jurisdiction would not be unique to coral. Species such as the Tasmanian forester kangaroo and Thailand giant catfish are also on the ESA list, animals whose native territories are hundreds of miles away from U.S. waters. These two species are among many other “NA” distribution classified species.

50 these MPAs are usually close to coastal development and growing populations, they hope research in their parks serve as “real-life” conditions to test hypotheses of restoration, management experiments, and resilience. Such opportunities are valuable and may be a way to begin understanding avenues for reef recovery in degraded environments and therefore valuable testing grounds for academia given that degraded reefs ultimately do not attract as many tourists and capital as healthy reefs. Approximately 655 million people or roughly 10% of the the world’s population live within 100 km of coral reefs, and the largest areas of reefs are within the boundaries of impoverished populations. It is estimated that 75% of those 655 million are in the poorest developing countries most of which have latched onto tourism as a viable development strategy (Donner and Potere 2007). A growing popularity of promoting a reef’s tourism potential has also drawn out some controversial positions on reasons for and against development, which are applied as logic to justify or preference top-down management strategies and thus have long-term social impacts. The importance of accurately defining the relationship between the user-communities and the reef environment in developing management structures, and the difficulties of doing that has drawn attention to issues of territorial rights but have also revealed a unique paradox. While growing tourist economies and the accessibility and popularity of SCUBA diving have been implicated as harmful to reefs, the demand for healthy reefs as an integral part of the tropical paradise experience promotes an economic interest in conserving them to increase tourism, giving the traditionally environmentally apathetic corporate-culture an air of conservation-mindedness. Therefore the discourses of harm and benefits to reef environments contain salient references to both conceptual expectations and economic implications, which makes them issues that are carefully discussed as politically sensitive, especially when large-scale use, development, or management and policy changes emerge as necessary. The final complication in all of these issues is one that would seem the most simple to achieve: monitoring and surveying. There are two facets that make this simple idea highly challenging and still unresolved. First, reefs are difficult to monitor because of their location, their extreme sensitivity and rapid changes in appearance that do not necessarily mean demise or poor health, and the resources and time required to invest in field excursions. Finding the same transect is not necessarily an easy task, even with the aid of GPS. Other practical issues must also fall into place such as weather, appropriate gear and the necessary skilled labor to conduct surveys, and the need to conduct them on a regular basis so that some sort of trend can be determined. But regardless of whether these issues are ironed out, there is also no protocol that is considered standard. This problem derives from the range of variables that each group developing the protocol deems as necessary to describe reef condition, and are inevitably based on regional differences and subjective experiences. There are over ten different monitoring protocols, none of which can be usefully integrated. Some involve the general population, others require special knowledge and recognition of the variety of species expected; some look at biological variables such as appearance of disease, or base reef-health on some model-based threshold of species populations considered “balanced.” Recent efforts such as the Atlantic-Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment have recognized the problematic issue of monitoring with the contention that the most necessary information needed

51 about reefs today is a general snap-shot of reef health (Figure 2.10). However, as the name implies, this protocol is also designed for use in a particular area and in its original form is not applicable to other reef areas, simply by virtue of significant differences in regional and basin-wide biodiversity. The question of the driving forces impacting reef health is clearly complicated and touches on many different facets related to the processes of science such as access to the environment and publication Figure 2.10. : Reef Surveying: A scientist with the University of Miami Atlantic-Gulf Rapid Reef procedures, navigating ways to incorporate the social Assessment Project (AGRRA) takes notes of systems that use them, finding some compromise of coral condition along a transect on the Florida reef tract. Monitoring, although informative, is ways to manage them that discourages harmful proving difficult to standardize given the wide practices, and figuring out how to organize what we diversity in ecosystems across geographic space. Such difficulties in standardizing know about reefs in the contexts of global climate monitoring instruments have hampered change. While many debate these issues, there is progress towards making definitive statements about biodiversity and ecosystem health. increasing awareness that economic drivers are often the cause of environmental degradation (through overexploitation in the case of reefs) given that all economic production is based on the transformation of raw natural resources into tradable products (Farley 2010), part of the conservation equation therefore requires a close look at the economic benefits provided by coral reef ecosystems.

2.5 Ecosystem Services

Why the interest in reefs? After all, the actual returns in absolute measures alluded to in the previous section are not significant enough to make or break economies on their own. Nevertheless, the growing interest in economic valuation of reefs is manifest, for example, in large-scale programs dedicated to this purpose, such as the “Economic Valuation of Coral Reefs in the Caribbean” of the World Conservation Monitoring Center (http://www.wri.org/project/valuation-caribbean-reefs). Given their limited geographic range and their extremely small areal expanse relative to global area, it would seem justifiable to relegate reefs as simply another interesting ecosystem found in the marine environment, such as the deep-sea rift ecosystems that harbor 10 meter long tube worms and blind albino crabs. Understanding reefs and reef-growth and trends in how they interact with their environments, however, is significant in both local and global terms, in both the present and the past. Although questionable to include here as a “service” in light of environmental issues over fossil fuels, the porous skeletons of coral nevertheless make paleo-reefs the among world’s largest oil reservoirs (e.g. Texas, the Persian Gulf regions). Regardless of the moral implications that could be engaged when involving for-profit

52 organizations, what we know about reefs today therefore can be partially attributed to petroleum corporations endeavors of research, expansion and growth. Importantly, as a consequence of their biology, modern reef systems have shown to provide current scientists a useful tool with which to inform the complexities of global climate change. Their sensitivity to the partial pressures of ambient CO2, temperatures, and their role in the global carbon cycles makes their biogeochemical dynamics of interest to scientific disciplines of enormous variety as well as political organizations that are debating how to determine necessary environmental action. This, too, may be only questionably called a “service” in terms of actual returns, however when viewed from a perspective as beneficial and helpful to scientific progress, reefs are an invaluable tool to understanding Earth's geochemical cycles. Conceivably, the most valuable local intrinsic benefit as an actual service provided by a healthy fringing or barrier reef system is its ability to provide some protection to adjacent land from the effects of tropical tempests. Given that hurricanes and typhoons are common occurrences in geographic regions occupied by reefs, having a reef as a natural barrier improves chances of human survival and reduces the extent of damage to coastal community infrastructures by buffering the coast from storm surges and flooding. Additionally, many of the countries in reef-rich areas are economically disadvantaged and are often not able to provide disaster relief to their affected inhabitants nor the resources to repair destroyed infrastructures such as schools and roads. Such shortfalls result in concrete social and political consequences as the country seeks to finance necessary restoration projects, very often with loans from inter-governmental organizations, which then delegate its currency valuation and entrench dependency (Porter and Sheppard 1998; Routledge 2002). It is therefore difficult to pin down an exact economic value that such a natural structure has in a poverty- or debt-dominated state, however attempts are being made to measure this and other factors of intrinsic values perceived as money-savers, given the inevitability of eventual destructive storm events in tropical reef settings (Hillman and D’Agostino 2003; Potter et al 2004; Richardson 1992). As alluded to above, reefs are magnetic to divers and recreational fishers and can provide a significant source of local income in terms of functioning enterprises and labor networks. As a general rule, the contribution of reefs to local economies is highly variable, and often depends heavily on the stability of the country and the socio-political unrest that often occurs in unstable, debt-ridden or poverty-stricken nations (e.g. Jamaica, Haiti, Indonesia). Some reefs are also difficult to access either because of distance or depths. Generally in tourism, the popularity or frequency of visits are a function of two practicalities: 1) how well-developed tourist services are to get to the area, and 2) how safe a place is considered to be, both of which also depend on externalities beyond local control, such as reputation and political, or socio-cultural stability. What would seem like benign or minor issues, such as an unreliable or difficult to navigate public transportation system for tourists, in developing countries nevertheless direct and control the flow of human traffic. Feelings of intimidation because of cultural differences, for example, affirmed by the highly visible security structures in tourist-resorts in the Caribbean, can make the difference as to which regions will be exposed to environmental pressures as well as gain

53 economically. The growing tourist economies in the Caribbean, however, have served to integrate cultures to some degree, although there is argument of whether it is too close to cultural exploitation, as stereotypical representations and imagery are woven into corporate marketing devices. Environmentally conscious image-creation through and “green” or “sustainable tourism” advertising trends has in many places resulted in a decreased attention to particular matters of conservation because it is assumed that sufficient conservation measures are being practiced (Berendse and Roessingh 2007). The gentrification of touristic regions that exists in developed countries is still in its formative stages in poverty-stricken areas. The commodification of these ecosystems has also posed some larger questions such as rights of access and issues of personal security that reflect the tensions between nations. Their calculus is crucial in understanding and defining issues of subsistence and importance in local economies. Logistical obstacles such as safe and trusted access to the reef, available places to stay, and reasonable rates to get there also determine how profitable reef tourism can be (Sharma 1999; Shaw and Williams 2002; Smith 2009). Along with inherent value for growing tourists markets, and their iterations throughout contingent institutional structures, reefs also connect to global fisheries by providing a nursery and shelter for a number of species at some point in their life-cycle, including important fisheries such as lobster and conch. Given they also host all trophic levels and attract migrating pelagic fish, reefs are a significant source of protein in depressed and subsistence economies. Additionally, concerns over extinctions of reef species have highlighted conservation urgency, with recent work suggesting potential medical applications of reef-creatures. Some research, though mostly communicated through informal channels given the corporate practices of competition, has indicated that some reef creatures show potential for pharmaceutical treatments to combat some cancers and other confounding human ailments, while its skeleton is ideally constructed for bone replacement.

2.6 Reef Restoration and Resource Investments

As more reef-bearing countries realize that a significant part of their tourist economies rely on happy divers with expectations of rich, healthy reef systems, attempts have been made to translate particular attributes into monetary terms. The true value of their ecosystems services as storm buffers has also been thoroughly accepted as having millions of dollars in value in terms of infrastructure and lives spared from a lesser degree of storm destruction. However, in a practical sense, regardless of the importance of even just the dead structure as a storm buffer, it is difficult for managers of a reef park that appears as in Figure 2.8, to motivate any financial charity and support that is required for realizing substantial change in conservation and restoration initiatives. Difficult questions of what reefs to “save” and how to delegate access make action difficult as they inherently include judgements and preferences that call into question issues of power and connection, and extreme uncertainty regarding outcomes of efforts. The primary validation of reef studies is a goal towards trying to determine their health. The logistics to doing so involve some sort of agreement on how a healthy reefs appears, its number of

54 herbivores, algal cover, living heads, size of heads, diversity. All of these variables involve intricate and peer-contingent judgements, making for no “easy-answer” and over five different concepts of monitoring standards. Trying to establish some comparative values of the many different monitoring protocols have pointed to the complexity in accomplishing a task that conceptually seems rather simple, but if implemented, involves answering complex questions that range from conceptual issues to simple matters of financial support: What is an acceptable range of coral death? Should recent death be counted different from long-term death, and how can one be certain about the difference? What is an acceptable amount of coral cover? What is the minimum threshold for “healthy” fish populations, and how can these be established? What is the proportion of herbivores to carnivores to apex predators? How should survey locations be sampled and how many locations is “enough” to ensure precision? What is the “ideal” spread for survey sites? How often should areas be monitored to establish enough evidence for measurable change? What changes will be measured and how? Who will pay for the maintenance of the boat and how will expenses like insurance, captain fees, gear, dockage fees and gas be covered? In practice, therefore, the goal of “monitoring reef health” includes implications far beyond what one may initially conceive. The monitoring data, therefore, represents a real and substantial investment of specialized knowledge and resources, and must contain some standardization and common variables if it is to be carried out over the long-term. The need to establish what parameters can be considered within the realm of normal or conducive to healthy reef growth also directs research in ways to understand how to determine and diagnose the health of reef systems. The problematic details involved in reef restoration have had reverberating effects in private enterprises. Different perceptions of what constitutes a healthy reef system makes standardizing restoration variables basically impossible to define in general terms, despite the expressed need for some universally-applicable Figure 2.11: Coral Transplanting: An experimental strategy. The general “hopelessness” expressed in A. cervicornis (staghorn coral) farm. Small colonies are grown on cinderblocks, seen here (and scattered many discourses about prospects of healthy reefs in the background). Colonies grown here are meant to advance reef restoration methods, although studies in the future, and the public interest these systems are too early to make any decisions regarding survival still capture have spurred an innovative reef rates or successful application. restoration industry, dominated by a variety of artificial reef architects and coral transplanting specialists. The former involves specialized hard grounds that are reported to support rapid and healthy reef growth, while the latter involves growing seed colonies with the intent to transplant them onto ailing reefs (Figure 2.11). Both strategies are in practice and are showing both success and failure, which calls into question the worthiness of investing resources

55 into what amounts to expensive experiments19. Resorts that profess environmental consciousness and development sensitivities are investing in projects to enhance their reefs for their clientele as a selling point of competitive advantage while also publicly demonstrating their progressive attitude of supporting green ideas and experimental sustainable environments spawning a profession of coral reef environmental consultant. However, this positive influence of what most see as the inevitable private enterprise of coastal development usually happens only in areas where strong governmental forces exist to ensure compliance, such as rapidly developing areas along the Red Sea where governments tend to have deep pockets funded by oil stores, and the attendant network of well-established and authoritarian power structures. But this “green” effort that has become popular in areas that can “afford it,” leaves out most reef-bearing nations. In most places that harbor reefs, where tourist development remains lucrative, governments are typically too “weak” (i.e. bankrupt) to control corporate behavior. Economic weaknesses of these often insular and small countries result in systems that are strongly conducive to corruption and bribery, which seeps into the citizenry as various expressions of dissatisfaction and deep political instability, which can easily make investors nervous and move on to a neighboring island or different region. The pressure to provide a “safe” investment environment, integrate into the global economy, provide jobs and “open” sources of revenue for reef-bearing countries that are still establishing their trajectories of development has resulted in their officials favoring what is sometimes unhampered development, and with it “selling out” when it comes to enforcing regulations meant to limit environmentally compromising practices and projects. The cross-scale linkages both institutionally and geographically, and complexities that define the problems inherent in reef conservation arise from personal engagements with the science and the environment and the networks that discuss them that are formed by various alignments with personal beliefs, academic loyalties, and personal experiences, contact and communication. The tight networks that compose the global community of reef researchers function in an enormous variety of geographic difference, which matters tremendously when attempting to draw any general conclusions about coral reef environments. These basic frames of analysis and perception of facts applied in the enormous range of environmental conditions form the basis for how coral reef systems science were assembled as one of crisis, as outlined in the following chapter. As such, questioning the science of coral reefs through querying subjective orientations, which evaluate scientific claims through personal filters, can serve to organize the conceptual and practical complexities of reef science and conservation into clearly-defined aspects based on the deeper attitudes that are common in the epistemic community and which direct those judgements.

19 The NOAA-directed restoration of Looe Key in Florida was achieved though a fine paid by the University of Miami. Its research vessel, the RV Columbus Iselin was held responsible for running aground and causing over 3500 m2 of damage across the famous reef patch in 1994. With a restoration price-tag of well over $2 million, the reconstructive efforts of transplantation essentially glued the reef back in 1999, and today is deemed an enormous success (http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/special/columbus/columbus.html).

56 3. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE CORAL REEF ENVIRONMENTAL “CRISIS”

We wandered where the dreamy palm Murmured above the sleeping wave; And through the waters clear and calm, Looked down into the coral cave, Whose echoes never had been stirred By breath of man or song of bird. –– J.C. Palmer, U.S. Navy Exploration Expedition, as quoted by James D. Dana in Corals and Coral Islands (1879) ❦❧❦ ❧❦

3.1 The Current State of Coral Reef Environmental Crisis

Coral reefs, the most biodiverse shallow-water marine ecosystems, are said to be in great decline. The rate of decline 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 their plight (Bellwood et al 2004). These “rain forests of the sea” are said to be suffering the greatest rates of environmental deterioration in the face of global change, particularly when 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 (Pandolfi et al. 2003; Roberts et al. 2002; Souter and Linden 2000; Worm et al. 2006). The problem of environmental degradation is certainly not unique to these ecosystems; however, the quandary that delineates reef ecosystem conservation efforts in particular is their inherent complexity: there is no apparent scientific consensus on the causes of reef degradation, the measures that would effectively mediate reef deterioration, nor what criteria determine what exactly constitutes a “healthy” or “ideal” coral reef, despite the notable progress made in understanding coral reef ecology (Aronson & Precht 2006; Birkland 1997; Briggs 2006; Ginsburg 2009; Ritchie 2008; Zane 2009). Prospects voiced by scientists are increasingly pessimistic regarding achieving an acceptable balance of reefs with the rapidly changing environmental stressors that are associated with global change (McWilliams et al 2005; Mumby and Steneck 2008). To satisfy the material and social requirements for mitigating coral declines suggests a need for a different approach to bridging the growing divide between science and its application towards environmental policy. The historical background of how studies on reefs were motivated and evolved to become a legitimate scientific specialization provides an important frame of reference to understand how the epistemic community studies, values, manages and commodifies these ecosystems. Useful to the purpose of understanding the context of crisis, this perspective also provides insight into the evolution of current epistemologies and dominant paradigms from the view of the proximal reef community. Given that scientific truth-gathering relies on a standardization of methods and is judged valid by the scientific method as a protocol used to establish “facts,” the origins of current debates and dominant paradigms in

57 coral reef science and conservation can explain, in part, why particular ideas were embraced or abandoned and what was required to sway opinion and academic allegiances (Dobbs 2005; Stoddart 1973; Latour 1983; Latour and Woolgar 1979). The curiosity about reefs, indeed an investigation about any particular topic in which resources will be expended, is mostly driven by purpose or a reason to justify the risks and costs. Especially today, the need to research and study something that counts as rigorous (and expensive) science must be justified beyond simply knowledge for its own sake20. The early and mostly aristocratic beginnings of what grew into the profession of “scientist” may provide some explanation as to why scientists today are inherently perceived as exceptional or special, and by extension, assumed to be “right” about what they maintain to be true. The confidence and understanding of how trust is established in science, especially regarding environmental issues, are ingrained through a standardized rigor of training as part of the practice of science, and results in some confusion when debates reach beyond the epistemic community. To hear debates within science and between scientists is conceptually confusing for those who are not familiar with the normative processes of how uncertainty is negotiated in science, and with that, places great doubt in what constitutes scientific fact21. Given the political arena in which environmental matters are now played out, this sort of confusion can muddle the goals and confuse well-established ontologies with political posturing (Latour 2004; Shapin 1998). With a tool to de-emphasize the uncertainty and prioritize the issues, which together have paralyzed policy action or continue to result in ecosystem failure (Bradbury and Seymour 2009; Dimitrov 2002), it would be possible to determine which issues are not part of the tensions in the debates and separate what is accepted as truth and what topics are still churning through the normative science mill that is meant to distill facts from the uncertainties and the subjectivities that buzz around them (Kuhn 1996; Hinchcliff 2007; Latour 1983, 2004; Latour and Woolgar 1973). A common theme in coral reef ecology and conservation literature recognizes the complex web of environmental and ecological factors endangering coral reef ecosystems on local and global scales (Birkeland 1997). Although the problems have not changed much in their basic premises (e.g. local human population pressures and global stressors), their relative emphases have. Concerns over the effects of global climate change on reefs were not as prolific in the 1980s as they are in the 21st Century

20 The concept of science as a systemized study, the origin of the methods we apply today is easily attached to the first Greek philosophers from whom texts and stories remain, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Yet, despite their activities having generally no “purpose” per se, the concept of standardized methods of questioning and answering, today’s forms and applications of logic, and views and understandings of the natural and human world originated with these thinkers (Deacon 1971; Peterson et al 1996). To explore beyond the necessities of survival requires resources that were generally not available to the “average” citizen. Although the scope is not to summarize the history of science, in generally, one can consider that knowledge-seeking as a profession was one of leisure and high class, and afforded mainly by the wealthy or well-connected, given the self-funding and the necessary social connections to conduct the research. The “scientist” therefore can be said to have aristocratic beginnings, and given the sound financial backing that needed to exist for its development made it a profession of high social ranking and often, privilege.

21 The issue of debating the existence of global warming is a mature example of this problematic.

58 and neither were ideas of evaluating ecosystem services in the context of an unequally-developing world mired in the global, generally unsustainable engagements of capitalism (Adams 2001; O’Conner 1994). Even if these issues were clear, management strategies that work do so only in particular cultural and geographic settings. For example, commons property tenure practices are not generally effective in Caribbean settings (Trist 2000; Zane 2009), which is a condition that is partially attributed to ways of environmental commodification, region-specific development trends, factors that ingrain poverty, and efforts of spatial restriction and enclosure typified by establishment of parks and other gentrified efforts of territorial regulation (Neuman 1998). Alternatively, tenure rights are generally respected in African settings but are nevertheless struggling with colonial influences and development goals in an increasingly influential capitalist system (Walley 2004), and yet seem to be highly efficient and functional in Oceania (Johannes 2001, 2003). Therefore reef management strategies are geographically fixed, determined and located, and are as diverse as the cultures that practice them. Effective management strategies are therefore not only dependent on sound policy, but also contingent on reef location (on all scales), political ecologies of proximal communities, historical geographies of colonialism and post-colonialism, and the waves of acculturations that came with them (Neumann 2005; Steinberg 2001). These together create distinctive regional identities of the communities that live around and use reefs, and also inevitably influence what is believed to be legitimate and applicable scientific fact with regard to conservation of these ecosystems. Because of, or perhaps in spite of the failure of scientific efficiency to mitigate reef decline, scientists and aligned policy makers have begun to advocate policies with irreversible implications such as instituting “no-take” marine protected areas that affect already-impoverished conditions in subsistence community livelihoods (e.g. Campbell 2007; Jackson et al 2001; Nichols 1999); performing “triage” operations that would write off the destruction of some environments as “inevitable” (e.g. Dean 2008), and suggesting cryogenic freezing of species to conserve samples of key coral reef organisms as pessimism over mitigating reef declines takes hold in the scientific community (McGrath 2009). The large variety of scientific disciplines, ontologies and management strategies, and beliefs about which combination of them would be most effective in reef conservation, or what should be done to mitigate reef declines in a timely manner, has made it difficult to inform policy with sound scientific consensus and has served to enhance uncertainty. Given the circumstances of uncertainty in which this and other environmental problems exists, scientists’ own perceptions of fact-claims and the necessary debates are part of what make reaching the common goal of reef health or effective conservation unlikely as they are disassembled to suit political and development goals. With the expansion of reef issues into politics, a variety of understandings about reef systems and their value have emerged, which have confused matters of fact that could otherwise potentially be effectively addressed. When there is unity in scientific ideas and cooperation to achieve a goal, Western science has proven its efficiency as the main source of progress as a means towards technological dominance, and therefore has influenced national and political power (Latour 2004), as documented by Deacon (1971) in her history on oceanography in general, and Peterson and others (1996)

59 in their history on the study of ocean circulation. Yet once this knowledge is to be put in action, uncertainty has dominated and undermined progressive efforts. The rates of reef decline have spurred greater management efforts, which have achieved little overall success as debates intensify over which factors are most important to address and how to mitigate them (McClanahan 1999). Disagreements over implementation and enforcement protocols are compounded by inconsistent financial sources and questions of delegation of power and responsibilities across geopolitical boundaries, which together have paralyzed conservation action by focusing on contention, political advantage and capitalist driven competition (Dimitrov 2002; Folke 2006; Jacques 2006; Latour 2004; Zane 2009). Coral reef science and conservation is thereby beset by uncertainty and competing policy prescriptions and priorities, while the urgency for action continues to escalate as a primary mandate to halt reef extinction (Bradbury & Seymour 2009; Briggs 2006; Carden 2006; Grafton and Kompas 2005; Kelleher and Recchia 2000; Mumby & Steneck 2008; Wilkinson 2008). To understand the culture of coral reef science is clarified by deconstructing the arguments and assumptions that motivate its research activities. A historical lens is also useful to extract heroes, central paradigms, and trace their evolution through the controversies and scientific “black boxes” (Kuhn 1996; Latour 1983). This gaze reveals a lay-out of the socio-political boundary conditions upon which current dominant paradigms have been constructed and simultaneously provides a conceptual map of how scientifically objective intentions have acquired subjective meanings and value by exposing the pathways through which these modern concepts were developed and transformed (Dobbs 2005; Law 1986; Livingstone 2003; Pyenson & Sheets-Pyenson 1999). What is understood about these ecosystems is, like in any science, grounded in its origins, its social network, its geographic expanse, its evolution, and its milestones, which all create its developmental history and constitute its identity (Franklin 1995; Kuhn 1996). Tracing the construction of coral reef science and conservation issues through the historical threads revealed in published works, provides the necessary contextual elements through which current debates are generated and negotiated (Demeritt 2002), and reveals both the objective and subjective parts of the mechanisms involved in the generation of facts and their distinguishing characteristics. The conservation of coral reefs as an environmental concept is therefore more accurately a discipline that is comprised of a conglomeration of scientific narratives and anecdotes about very specific places, geographically located and socially distinct that were communicated by reliable tested and proven witnesses and inquisitors who interpreted answers in accordance with Western philosophical standards of fact-creation and validation (Law 1986; Livingstone 2003; Pyenson & Sheets-Pyenson 1999; Shapin 1998; Stoddart 1973). Problems that are characterized by spatial, temporal and socio-cultural features, by default, fall squarely within the jurisdiction of geography as a theoretical starting-point on which to work towards solving environmental crisis.

60 3.2 Geographic Settings: Material and Political Contexts of Reef Environments

Geographic perspectives provide a template through which to view an environmental problem. Reefs, and in general marine ecosystems, occupy a distinct place, are defined by physical and material realities that define how humans will be able to adapt and overcome the physical obstacles to understanding and managing them. The primary delimiter of an environment is its material non-human materialities that support its existence and create its distinctiveness as environment. The combination of the material “realities” that constitute the physical, demographic and social nature of reef environments also have an influence on where reefs exist. In this sense, the most primary filter through which social development and cultural attributes of place are organized and contextualized in human value-systems are by the environmental conditions at hand and how to cope or incorporate them in socialized systems that use or manage them. Regionally, the physical and material realities that constitute the setting of reefs and the subsequent development of the distinct cultural expressions of place are all contingent on the material realities of spaces occupied by coral reefs. As detailed in Chapter 2, hermatypic reef-building coral all require light for the photosynthetic symbiotic organisms that reside in the coral’s tissue called zooxanthellae. These single-celled plants provide the extra energy needed by the coral animal to efficiently build its limestone skeleton. Therefore, to grow in healthy stands reefs ideally require clear, 70-80°F, well-circulated seawater and soon develop an intricate network of creatures with highly specialized form and function. In fact, coral reef species are so obviously connected that descriptions of reef ecology are expressed in comparative analogies of a well-maintained city, complete with “water filtration plants” (sponges), and “gardeners” and “landscapers” (sea urchins, parrotfish, and damselfish). Usually, reefs are found in relatively shallow marine settings thereby often locating them within close proximity to coastal communities and high accessibility relative to a pelagic fisheries or other offshore resources. Globally, coral reefs are generally found within a belt around the equator that is bounded at 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 (e.g. Bermuda), while high loads of river sediments into otherwise suitable coastal waters can inhibit growth (e.g. Orinoco River basin outflow). The physical setting of these ecosystems, therefore, makes researching them not without practical concerns: to visit a reef usually requires a boat or other vessel; instruments often used in the marine environment to observe or take measurements rapidly corrode in salt-water and are therefore extremely costly to build and maintain than those used in most terrestrial settings. Some reefs grow as deep as 100 meters, depending on water clarity, yet even as most are not as deep, diving or strong swimming skills are necessary to researching these systems. Information and technologies potentially leading to the preservation of coral reef environments have increasingly become a matter of scientific duty and moral obligation of collecting genetic inventory, given that they are also recognized to have the highest biodiversity of species (by phyla) of any known ecosystem (Reaka-Kudla 1997). Growing concerns raised

61 over global climate change such as ocean warming and acidification are an emergent theme through which to analyze and characterize the discourses of reef ecosystems science and conservation. In a practical context in terms of ecosystem services, the corals’ hard limestone structures that often parallel the shoreline provide coastal communities with an effective, wave energy-absorbing buffer from storms, and reef degradation has been directly correlated to greater physical damages from hurricanes from storm surge and shoreline erosion. Because many already impoverished countries suffer a high onslaught of such tempests, a natural structure that aids in human survival and reduces costs of coastal damage can be assessed as providing an extremely valuable service. In terms of development of poor countries and departures from dependency, tourist economies in tropical countries of the Caribbean and South Pacific are increasingly using reefs as part of their identity and place-specific uniqueness to build a competitive market draw for much needed sources of capital and therefore a perception of political stability, national independence, and bargaining power (Birkeland 1997; Bischof 1998; Bradbury & Seymour 2009; Rydin 2003; Spalding et al 2001; Wilkinson 2008; Zane 2009). From a materialist physical perspective, the ecosystem services provided by coral reefs include shelter for fishery nurseries, important fishing grounds and sole sources of protein, especially for subsistence and artisenal coastal communities in developing countries and “remote” regions (e.g. Indonesia, Caribbean, Oceania). In developed countries (e.g. Australia, Hawaii, Florida), reefs play a relatively significant role in regional recreational and large-scale commercial fishing and diving 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. Expanding on an environmental deterministic perspective, the iteration of cultural norms emergent from physical contexts of marine space together socially construct the unique places that develop around reef ecosystems. Consequently, coral reef ecosystems are geographically distinct with unique social contexts that are defined by the specific nature of social networks across space and through time (Jacques 2006; Onuf 1989; Pomeranz & Topik 1999). Regarding political conditions and international relations, the generalized tropical growth- preference of reefs along the world’s equatorial belt places them within the jurisdictions of many different countries and cultures and the entire range of socio-political ideologies of territorial control: from indigenous tenure and commons management systems, enforced through social pressures and community taboos (e.g. Oceania22) to deep-seeded communism and strict permitting systems to access

22 Indigenous tenure systems have traditionally been summarily marginalized because of the pervasiveness of population woes developed in Malthusian perceptions of “the commons” as inherently tragic, as first expressed in Hardin’s tragedy of the commons (Johannes 2003). Subsequent development of Western ideologies of environmental science and its integration (or not) into indigenous ideologies are increasingly relevant as concerns (Bowler 1992; Hardin 1968; Jacques 2006; Johannes 2002; Maes 2008). Studies are increasingly emerging on coral reef environments that provide evidence of successful management regimes based in principles of commons management and strong community tenure relationships that are in many cases successful strategies of resource control and conservation (Johannes 2002; McNiven 2003; Neumann 1998).

62 marine spaces (e.g. Cuba23). In terms 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 (UNCLOS 1982). The location of reefs and the inherent difficulties in studying them, given material boundaries and interwoven political challenges, therefore require many social and material contingencies to gain access and collect the necessary data from which to solve uncertainties. Long-term scientific observation of this ecosystem is a logistical challenge at best, and regime-like cooperation and collaboration is required should political will be consolidated into action (Dimitrov 2003; Hansenclever et al 1997; Krasner 1983). Generalizations about the environment are commonly and often embraced as a best guess; however, as is evident in the history of reef science and conservation, generalizations are also not easily applied when discussing an ecosystem that is geographically located and distinct, materially, ecologically and socially.

3.3. Early Social Contexts: Roots of Consequence, Necessity & Development

The sundry of cultures and traditions that emerged out of the physical geographies and material conditions of reef regions inevitably led to complex regional social networks of resource exchange, patterns of acculturation, developments in technologies, and distributions of power. In a social Darwinist sense, early knowledges about the marine environment were socially organized to increase likelihood of community survival and success for which a practical and functional understanding of the marine environment was crucial, especially for insular cultures that had limited access to terrestrial resources, or which could not support terrestrial-style living adaptations––large agricultural fields––because of poor soils or small size (e.g. The Bahamas, Oceania). And although knowledges were employed in a systematic way and were highly functional given their existence and survival through the generations, knowledges of maritime ecosystems from early “primitive” maritime civilizations were not usually incorporated into positivist ontologies, but rather typically marginalized and mythologized. Once geographic information was extracted from indigenous societies, enough so to effectively maneuver in their environment, little credit was given to their knowledge of environment. Marginalizing “primitive” environmental knowledge systems was, however, common throughout the centuries of seafaring European expansion, given assumptions of intellectual superiority, and justified aggressive colonization, unfettered and uncompensated capitalist resource extraction, leading to eventual economic and technological superiority, and the establishment and dominance of Western Euro-centric epistemologies and ontologies (De LasCasas 2003; Diamond 1999; Edwards 1994; Livingstone 2003; Mintz 1985; Richardson 1992; Sale 1990; Steinberg 2001; Taylor 2000; Williams 1994).

23 Incidentally, this strict non-capitalist permitting structure and political isolation has been credited with Cuba’s having some of the healthiest reef systems known in the entire Caribbean region (Lang 2003). Geographic isolation is also cited as the influential factor of healthy conditions, such as the Bahamas, and the extremely difficult-to-access atolls of the central regions in the South Pacific (Dobbs 2005; Wilkinson 2008).

63 The coral reef “crisis” is one of many environmental issues that finds its roots in deeper origins of early systematic scientific studies of marine environments in general, and began in the same way as many such environmental studies. European exploration and colonization, trade and subsequent wealth and capital development were facilitated by knowledge of tides, weather and currents, mainly for navigation and resources (Peterson et al 1996; Reidy 2008), and were driven by a fascination of marine space that took hold among adventurous Western naturalists, albeit in sporadic bursts of interest and focus (Deacon 1971; Vaughn 1910, 1914, 1917; Goreau 1959; Lambert et al 2006; Peterson et al 1996; Sale 1990). The consistency of environmental measurements that constitutes records of weather and hypotheses of global ocean currents were motivated by commercial forces such as shipping insurance and development of trade routes (Jacques 2006; Peterson et al 1996; Pomerenz and Topik 1999; Richardson 1992). These early endeavors constitute the foundation in which all disciplines of “normative” marine observations and concepts are rooted and are by default structured around established protocols of standards of truth- claims, repeatable and falsifiable. Ultimately, knowledge that emerged out of ancient coastal and maritime civilizations was structured around the innate human drive for survival and capital development, which are the deeper links that together constitute early seeds of marine science and technologies (Deacon 1971; Sobel 1995; Spooner 1983). Although the purpose of this work does not include a deep history of the origins of coastal and insular communities, their development and history plays a role in perceptions of marine space that underlie all subsequent development trends and migrations. The Afro-Asian origin of modern humans and subsequent expansion into Southeast Asia and Europe that led to evolutionary advances and organized civilizations is the prevailing discourse of renditions of early human cultural development, and it is generally now accepted that most of these early human communities settled first along the coasts prior to venturing inland (Fernández-Armesto 2006). The timing of human communities settling into maritime and insular regions, especially those on geographically small land masses with limited resources such as Oceania, The Bahamas and the Lesser Antilles, were important formative stages of global advancements in human marine-oriented civilization. The earliest “studies” of the oceans can therefore be credited to those often called “primitive” civilizations that lived by the sea and which needed too understand how to maneuver and cope in the physical environment that defines marine space. The need to bridge geographic distances, harness available resources, and the social tendency to create communities and trade alliances motivated the development of technologically specific tools to successfully commute across ocean space (Hourani 1995; Richardson 1992; Fernández-Armesto 2006). In these formative communities, astute observations and knowledge of the environment and its cycles that allowed these communities to survive and mobilize was learned though direct social contact, community practice, and oral traditions. A well-studied example of this split in land-based versus marine-based systems of survival and development are the cultures of Oceania in the South Pacific. These maritime cultures viewed the sea as their space of existence and territory, and a vast aqueous space is simply the circumstance in which they conduct their lives and around which their cultures and technologies consequently developed and spread

64 throughout these isolated islands and atolls. These maritime cultures developed specialized vessels and sail rigging, and other material necessities and technologies with the resources at hand (e.g. Indonesian outriggers and the layar tanja, the tilted rectangular sail) and a means to accurately navigate across “empty” and “homogenous” ocean space. The Pacific islanders’ knowledge of weather, and observations of wave and swell patterns in the sea led to their development of an accurate map of islands, ocean currents, and prevailing swells constructed out of sticks and shells bound together, and allowed them to reach a particular spec of land among thousands of other atolls spread across thousands of miles of ocean (Houghten 1996). The necessary technological advancements needed to intentionally cross vast distances of ocean successfully first depends on developing the appropriate vessels with environment-specific designs to best achieve the tasks and goals, provided only with the resources at hand and passed-down knowledge. In what is often called “primitive” societies, such requisite knowledge was mostly transmitted orally or through exposure, experiencing patterns in cycles of weather and conditions of the sea, developing a keen sense of evaluation of risk and chance, and correctly judging limits of their skills and gear. Once boats ventured beyond the shorelines, navigation methods and related skills of reading the environment were absolutely crucial for survival. Geographically distinctive by their insular and isolated nature when viewed with a core-periphery concepts in World Systems theoretical perspectives introduced by Immanuel Wallerstein (Taylor 2000), these insular maritime places were spaces that by virtue of their difficulty of accessibility were among the last places to be appropriated and dominated by humans, given the necessity of appropriate and particular technological and physical materialities. Survival at sea required a special commitment to the hardships it presented and specialized knowledge of the marine environment that solely terrestrial-based cultures did not have to contend with. Such distinct material challenges conceivably entrenched the last-place timing of Homo sapien expansion into remote marine spaces such as the South Pacific atolls and small Caribbean and Western Atlantic islands and certainly contribute to the explanation of the technologically inferior circumstances of these formative cultures upon contact with the European expansionists. The first studies of oceans in a systematic normative scientific protocol according to the positivist episteme of Western science24, however, must be credited to the earliest Mediterranean and Asian civilizations, those individuals whose names we associate with the beginnings of philosophy and observations of nature, such as Plato, Thales and Aristotle. Those early knowledge-seeking endeavors eventually gave rise to greater understanding of the marine realm for practical reasons of religious favor, glory, and territorial dominance. Such endeavors were also typically motivated by competitive advantages of achieving social, political and capital goals that would fuel the earliest development of positivist environmental studies. By the 1300s, the early concepts of territorial distribution and appropriation of marine spaces originated in emerging ideologies of national identities, and by the late 1400s resulted in politically-sanctioned exploration, and aggressive expansionist ambitions by Western

24 This can be considered a precursor to the Scientific Revolution that surged through the Enlightenment period of Europe and the ensuing positivist and collective efforts of standardizing and qualifying empirical studies in the form of “scientific research.”

65 European cultures (Chaudhuri 1985; Deacon 1971; Hourani 1995; Jacques 2006; Peterson et al 1996; Pomeranz & Topik 1999; Reidy 2008; Sale 1990; Sobel 1995; Steinberg 2001; Vaughn 1910, 1917). Cultural human geographies of the oceans, like any space that is organized under a regime of Westernized cultural attributes, are strongly rooted in the socio-political quest for control over territory and resources for capital gain and power. 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 (Deacon 1971; Lambert et al 2008; Peterson et al 1996; Steinberg 2001). The development of marine environmental “crisis” is therefore hinged to the manner in which these systems were valued and studied and perceived through those individuals who formed the early networks of what eventually evolved into marine scientists. 3.4 “Naturalist” Origins of Reef Knowledge

The location of reefs in what are still considered isolated places served to delegate them as a topic of scientific interest within the realm of early Enlightenment naturalists who had the financial security and social status and freedom to obtain necessary resources that allowed them to explore these remote “corners of the world.” Reefs within geological outcrops had been an object of interest among many, given it was far easier to access terrestrial spaces, however reefs as living ecosystems remained unexplored until the early 1700s. Tropical coral reefs were first suggested to be a distinct environment as early as the 1750s, when Georges Cuvier set himself on the task of cataloging all the fish known to exist, the most colorful and dramatic of which were reef species. Nevertheless, reefs were not researched as a comprehensive ecosystem until the early 1800s (Dobbs 2005; Goreau 1959). The earliest interest in these systems most likely involved knowing their location (for navigation purposes) as trans-oceanic shipping to the growing colonies became a booming business that required secure transport of manufactured goods to colonists and a continuous influx of raw materials from the colonies (Fernández-Armesto 2006; Pomeranz and Topik 1999; Richardson 1992; Sale 1990). Although mentioned in writings about Jamaica as early as 1757 (Goreau 1959), reefs as a specific ecological topic of interest roughly dates back to the 1800s during the highly public academic argument between naturalist Charles Darwin and his academic rival Alexander Agassiz regarding their competing theories of the genesis, geography and geology of Pacific coral reef atolls (Russell and Yonge 1928; Dobbs 2005). Many of these debates were printed in the newspapers of the time, thereby also exposing the reading public to reefs as an interesting biological feature that has geological implications (NYT 1875; 1898). The technological and political requirements needed to conclude the conceptual disagreement of reef formation in the Pacific would not only establish the legitimacy of reef science as a specialization, but also disseminate the study of coral reefs to a wide variety of scientific disciplines. Soon coral reef studies as a focus were spread across the globe in efforts to find more evidence with which to navigate uncertainties inherent in the obvious differing geographies in which reefs were found and the

66 understanding that atolls are, in fact, merely one “type” of reef (Dobbs 2005; Goreau 1959; Somerfield 2008). This period marks a distinct boundary in the time-line of reef research and signifies a first step in transforming reef studies from the domain of the romantic narratives of Victorian “natural history” and casting this topic into the realm of standardized and rigorous methods of disciplined ecological enquiries, better known as modern science (Dayton and Sala 2001; Dobbs 2005; Johnstone 1911; Russell and Yonge 1928).

3.5 Historical Scientific Traces and Public Emergence of Reefs

A brief glimpse of newspaper articles that appeared in The New York Times from the 1850s through the 1960s can provide some insight about the perception of coral reefs and the coastal environment in the public imagination as coral reef science began to emerge as a legitimate topic of investigation. In the earliest periods of human interaction with the sea, reefs were mainly known as shipping obstructions (Peterson et al 1996). Mid-19th Century newspapers included a list of maritime events such as ship damage and sinkings, strange occurrences, vessel disappearances, loss of goods in crossings, confirmed ports-of-call, remarkable marine weather events, and other marine-specific news in a column the New York Times called “Marine Intelligence.” Reefs were well-known, or at least objects that had become familiar to the general public throughout the age of colonial seafaring as the main method of transportation, exploration, and communication of goods and services. Just as one may hear about the stock exchange in present-day media, newspapers of the time included detailed updates on the state of maritime affairs that included ship groundings and maydays. Several times per year one could read about a ship running aground on a coral reef. Since the earliest days of navigation of the seas, reefs have been somewhat of a nemesis to seafarers of the tropics, and from the newspapers one can surmise that those who could read them would also be aware of their existence. For navigators, these systems are, for obvious reasons, extremely important if one is to hope for safe passage across the tropics, which was at the time opening up to solid and safe trade-routes as piracy had been well-controlled (Richardson 1992; Spooner 1983) in part because accurate navigation methods had become more accessible through the invention of the marine chronometer25 in 1754 (Sobel 1995). Reefs were often carefully noted on charts and in logs mainly in the interest of safe passage, and surveys were conducted throughout the 1700s to establish where navigational markers and lights should be positioned. During the the age of trans- oceanic exploration and European expansion of trade routes to the Caribbean and Pacific, geographic descriptions of new islands were published in the newspaper, and would include a state of the reef and their growth patterns. Reefs were therefore a topic of great interest to the reading public, and as such, the debate over their origins was an issue of equal relevance as demonstrated by the interest in the debate between Charles Darwin and Alexander Agassiz (Dobbs 2005).

25 The development of a sea-worthy clock allowed navigators to accurately determine longitude, which also freed ships from widely-known trade-routes and passages and with that reduced the frequency of pirate-ambush that relied on the predictability of these sea-routes.

67 The debate between these early scholars involved reef diversity, their geographic range and expanse, their requisite physical conditions for development, and the variety of growth styles. The physical elements of these systems provided a useful mechanism through which to settle uncertainties within scientific disciplines, particularly geology, biology and chemistry. Coincidentally, the loudest debate of science pertained to a highly contested issue in crustal geology, i.e. plate tectonics, and scientific study of reefs became a subject of extreme fascination among naturalists of the time. For naturalists such as Charles Darwin, Alexander Agassiz, and James Dwight Dana, the curiosity of reefs was intensified by their use as geologic measures and evidence for early ideas about the behavior of the Earth’s crust that emerge as modern concepts in theories of crustal subsidence, volcanology and marine geophysics.

3.6 The Making of a Baseline

Among the earliest scientific projects devoted specifically to coral environments were those conducted on reefs with the intention of using them as environmental tools for solving geological questions. These culminated with the drilling of Pacific atolls beginning in the late 1800s and finally successful in 1953 (Edgeworth 1904; Emery 1948; Ladd and Ingerson 1953). Once drilling was begun and reported, the polarization of the scientific community about the origin and growth of reefs shifted from the atoll-question onto the variety of possibly interpretations about the sediments brought up with the drill-cores and the possible origins and geographies of reefs all over the world (Agassiz 1903; Davis 1928; Vaughn 1910; Yonge 1930). Quite suddenly, intensive studies were conducted of Florida’s Dry Tortugas and the Keys in the latter part of the nineteenth century (Agassiz 1894, 1903; Dana 1853; Somerfield et al 2008), in Barbados and Bermuda in the early 1890’s (Agassiz 1895), and on the eastern edges of Andros, in the Bahamas in the 1920s (Miner 1925). With the scientific focus turned towards linking reefs directly to their environments, early descriptive observations of corals document environmental characteristics such as health, geographic coverage, growth and structure-types, and elaborate, descriptive details of species diversity, abundance and behavior (Beebe 1928; Dana 1879; Jackson 1997; Jackson et al 2001; Thomson 1877). Some of the first published scientific documents therefore established early imaginations of “healthy reefs” that provided the foundations from which to compare and contrast effects of observed environmental disturbances, such as coral bleaching and the effects of hurricanes and disease noticed early on (Beebe 1928; Goreau 1959). By 1960, destruction of coral reefs were noticed by researchers and mostly attributed to “natural” causes such as storms, many of which were reported to have “flattened” the lush stands of coral colonies across all oceans, with dramatic images of rubble mounds and descriptions of devastation appearing in scientific journals (Goreau 1959). By this time, the inventory of organisms that populate the oceans had achieved a critical mass and in 1933, the Hall of Ocean Life at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City opened its doors to an eagerly awaiting curious public (New York Times 1933; McDonald 1996).

68 Yet, despite over 100 years of concerted scientific interest in this ecosystem at this point, it was not 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 imagination of Western society through dramatic images of alien creatures with weird, unsuspected behavior. Having perfected the SCUBA regulator with colleague Emile Gagnan in 1943, and building his own underwater camera gear and equipment, Cousteau and his team brought back the first color images of tropical coral reefs from the maiden voyage of the vessel Calypso in 1952, whose expedition goals were to document the coral reefs in the Red Sea (Cousteau Society 2009; Matsen 2009; Russell and Yonge 1963). Coral reefs were now gaining public acclaim for being a delicately balanced living resource and important treasure troves of biodiversity, which were located in exotic and “untouched” places. The public had now been exposed to a new perception of reefs as an important and valuable ecosystem, precariously balanced, teeming with a stunning collection of creatures that create complex ecological webs. Indeed, with the invention of the regulator, SCUBA diving was accessible to nearly anyone, first producing an entire generation of “Cousteau-kinder” with aspirations of oceanographic exploration (Ginsburg 2009) and eventually becoming available to the growing water- sports and tourism markets in the tropics (Adams 2001; Bowler 1992; Marx 1996; Matsen 2009; Richardson 1998; Russell and Yonge 1963). Inevitably, greater attention was given to localized damage such as overfishing and physical disturbances and linking them to escalating pressures from growing coastal populations and factors of risk (Bryant et al 1998; Ginsburg 1994). Direct oversight of reefs was seen as necessary and immanent, and suggestions to create parks––spaces of control and power––demanded answers to difficult questions of regulation and enforcement, commons property rights, and jurisdictional boundaries (Christie and Hildreth 1994; Christie and White 2007; Terborgh et al 2002; Trist 2000; Walley 2004). This surge of publicity was another 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. Early studies consistently mention the luxuriant and prolific thickets of branching Acropora species (Dana 1879; Russell and Yonge 1963; Yonge 1930; Miner 1925). And as coastal populations in reef regions surged and resource extraction intensified through the mid-1900s, these same early images and documentaries became powerful affidavits of rapid ecosystem decline (Goreau 1959; Gardner et al 2003; Jackson 1997; Jackson et al 2001; McCulloch et al 2003; Pandolfi et al 2003; Pauly 1995; Sheppard 1995; Sommerfield et al 2008) and provided a standard against which environmental changes would be measured and judged26 (Bryant et al 1998; Pauly 1995; Sheppard 1995).

26 Early studies consistently mention the luxuriant and prolific thickets of branching Acropora species (Russell and Yonge 1963; Yonge 1930), so it is not surprising that acroporids were among the first species of coral to be included on the World Conservation Union’s IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2008).

69 3.7 Marine Protected Areas: A Framework for Territorial and Geopolitical 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) such as the John Pennekamp State Park in Key Largo, Florida in 1963 and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority along the eastern shores of Australia in the mid-1970s. By the 1970s and 1980s, marine parks had become the logical response to the burgeoning coastal populations and the call for restricted use and exploitation if these systems are to be “sustainable” (Adams 2001; Hughes 2002; McClanahan 1999, 2006). In 1983, a mass mortality of long-spined sea-urchins (Diadema antillarum), which are known to be key herbivores that keep the reef from algal overgrowth, was documented in the Caribbean and Western Atlantic, attributed to a disease that was effectively wiping out the entire population in this region. In the Indo- Pacific around this time also came the problematic infestation of the rapidly-reproducing Crown-of- Thorns (Acanthaster sp.) starfish, which gorge on coral polyps and can decimate an entire reef in a matter of weeks (Birkeland 1997). By this time, it was also becoming common knowledge among reef scientists that these ecosystems were experiencing more difficulty in recovering from all stressors and resilience became a hot topic, and included goals of understanding the importance of geographic connections, “connectivity,” and biodiversity indices. Alone the scientific claims that these areas should be protected did not suffice as reasons to begin closing off areas. In order to better, or more concretely legitimate the need for oversight, comparative studies grounded in the concept of Hardin’s tragedy of the commons were applied to describe the problems seen in these “early” stages of reef decline (Hardin 1968; Russ and Zeller 2003). By the 1980s, 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 (Bell et al 2006; Folke 2006; Ginsburg 1994; Jackson 1997, 2001; Jackson and Sala 2001; Jaques 2006; McClanahan 1999). With the rise in parks and the attendant need for organized oversight of politicized management systems of reefs across all geographic and socio-political scales, governmental and non-governmental organizations began to emerge, organize and firmly take hold during this time, institutionalizing research to empirically determine accountability of failures in marine conservation, standardizing measures for reef health and valuation, and coming up with a formula of success in achieving ecosystem health and environmental stability (Bowler 1992; Christie and White 2007; Costanza 1997, 1999, 2009; Ginsburg 1994; Lubchenco 2003). Although currently reef MPAs number at over five hundred, they generally are viewed as being mostly unsuccessful in achieving goals of the reduction in coral cover losses (Mora et al 2006; Mumby and Steneck 2008), which is also however related to the expectations of what the parks could achieve. Some scientists suggest setting more “realistic” goals if progress is to made. However, the simplicity of this statement is deceiving. A study that focused on coral cover by Selig and Bruno (2010) looked at over 8500 coral reef surveys from 1969 to 2006 and seemed to show that in places where parks have been created and where regulations are consistently enforced, coral cover had not shown the same loss as a neighboring

70 unregulated reef area, and in some cases, even improved, while fisheries populations in those regulated spaces have increased. At the same time, other scholars say that the survey data Selig and Bruno (2010) took into account was far to inconsistent and simply cannot be standardized to make such a comprehensive evaluation that assumes comparable data (Ginsburg 2009). Nevertheless, Bruno and Selig (2010) maintain that parks can be effective in preventing local stressors, but that this trend seems to take about fourteen years for the Caribbean systems, and between five and ten years for reefs of the Indo- Pacific, implying that biodiversity, about five times greater in the Indo-Pacific, and connectivity are likely determining factors that influence reef recovery. Time is therefore a necessary part of the equation to judge the trajectory of a park’s condition and success, and that has implications regarding whether to support it with financial and political backing. Other parameters considered critical to reef health, however, such as key species, coral composition, species richness, and distribution are metrics that scientists were unable to resolve from this data-set they applied towards drawing their conclusions. The implication from MPA studies over the past decade or so is that it is uncertain whether they do anything to improve coral health, especially given the susceptibility to global stressors, however, it seems if no-take regulations or limited fishing and use-regimes are enforced, parks can work––but only if they are of a particular size with relation to the biodiversity, and thus an environmentally-sensitive scale has also been established as part of the equation (Halpern 2003; Selig and Bruno 2010). Financial incentives by international organizations and NGOs have spurred the formation of hundreds of parks that although they officially exist, do so mainly as a document or official memo in a tucked-away government file once the money runs out and no alternative financial support is secured, turning it into a “paper-park.” The Selig and Bruno (2010) study, while valuable in consolidating nearly forty years of survey data on the efficacy of parks, did not consider any social parameters, which were outside the scope of their purely ecological interest. A circumstance that may not be immediately clear is that there is already a bias in the data in terms of sampling: the availability of survey data, i.e. that resources were expended to conduct a valid scientific effort of data collection over an extended period of time already indicates a committed academic, social, and financial investment in that place and therefore the conclusions generally apply only to well-established and functional parks that have ample resources and fostered research initiatives to attract studies. In areas where the resources are lacking to support the park beyond declaring its boundaries, surveys are scarce if conducted at all and salaries for administrative park personnel or for officers to enforce regulations do not necessarily exist. The “paper-park” failures of protected areas in developing regions suggest that the supporting science and sound logic that informed reef-management efforts can not override cultural identities, nor resolve issues of territorial control and the local use patterns of these environments. Although new forms of regulatory structures are being introduced through what is generally called “participatory management” where community members are solicited as part of the management structure, and “integrated coastal management” a potentially effective but intricate and involved system that requires consistent participation on many socio-political levels and a strong institutional support system (Milne et al 2003), which may not be sustainable (Christie 2005) given that it is unlikely these structures can be

71 supported in most developing countries. And because these strategies have emerged only in the last several years, are essentially still in phases of development and not implemented long enough or in enough areas from which to draw any conclusions, their efficacy remains uncertain (Selig and Bruno 2010). However, the recognition of how crucial it is to engage the community in management issues, especially in developing regions, has resulted in more academic attention directed towards understanding cultural use patterns and tenure systems of these ecosystems and accepting community forces as real variables that impinge on conclusions drawn by ecosystem-based research. Humans have affected nearly every marine ecosystem known, with coral reefs among those most vulnerable if current patterns of use persist (Halpern et al 2008). The social impacts that emerge on reefs are therefore a burgeoning ontological goal in the efforts to figure out how to manage and distribute power and resources in spaces of reefs (Aronson and Precht 2006; Bellwood 2004; McClanahan 1997; McClanahan et al 2006). 3.8 The Present: Urgency, Failure and Crisis

In the 1980s, scientific research on reefs was increasingly commissioned for the purpose of assigning causation and preferencing of competing policies in attempts to make parks work. Territorial control and oversight and a distinct politicization of reef science took hold as more formalized institutions sprang up and became directly involved. 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 (NOAA 2010). Since then, public interest in reefs has endured and taken hold in the public media as a crisis based on news of continuing decline in reef ecosystem services (WRI 2009). The focus on scientific research commissioned for the purpose of assigning causation and preferencing of competing policies marks a politicization of reef science, which has endured through the start of the 21st Century. When managing reefs also required managing people, coral reef science became partly a civic endeavor, which attached values and blame to what were positivist findings and results (Agardy 2003; Kleypas and Eakin 2007). This has enormous implications regarding the trust that the public places in scientific accuracy (Shapin 1998) and in other environmental issues, has shown concerning results that have entrenched science deeper into politics (Pew Research Center 2009a, 2009b). With the inclusion of human agency as the causative element and the wide-ranging opinions on effects and responsibilities, coral reef science is now widespread among nearly all disciplines as well as a topic of interest in the public media. Current marine policy research also points to the pivotal role of social factors in determining conservation success and the profound disjuncture between scientific findings and their applications, while competing knowledge systems, such as indigenous tenure systems, are beginning to emerge as viable options (Agardy et al 2003; Bodin et al. 2006 Boesch 1999; Bradbury & Seymour 2009; Cinner 2007; Cleary 2006 Dimitrov 2002; Jentoft et al. 2007). The public debate on coral decline and how to contend with environmental change mostly motivates the research agenda for coral

72 reefs. Today’s science on reefs is not only interested in understanding them biologically, but also as environmental gauges that can be applied to concerns of global warming (Anthony et al 2008; Peñaflor et al 2009). Regional differences between reef regions are tied to distinctly different patters of scientific exploration, colonization and trade (Deacon 1971; Jackson 1997; Lambert et al 2006; Richardson 1998). 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 (Cinner 2007; Jentoft et al. 2007; Mumby and Steneck 2008; McClanahan et al 2006). Direct economic motivation is also not a major factor in this situation. Although coral reefs do provide valuable ecosystem services, they do not compete as issues that center on capital endeavors on a grand scale. Current marine policy research points to a profound disjuncture between scientific findings and policy creation as the fundamental reason for the mostly ineffective and failing conservation schemes (Arkema et al. 2006; Boesch 1999; Hempel and Morozova 2001; Hempel and Sherman 2003; Jentoft et al. 2007). The response to the continued failure of halting or mediating reef decline has been to call for “more science” and has produced a myriad of policy implications (Agardy et al 2003; Allison et al. 1998; Hempel and Morozova 2001; Higgens et al 2006; Jones 2001; McClanahan et al. 2006). Many scholars have noted the pivotal role of social factors in determining conservation success (Agardy 2000; Bodin et al. 2006; Cleary 2006, Kelleher and Recchia 1998; Mascia et al 2003; McClanahan 1999); however, few, if any, have focused on social contexts influencing the generation of scientific knowledge or its translation into policy prescriptions by deconstructing subjectivities inherent in its generation. Presently, these ecosystems are said to be in great decline, which is increasing, both on local and global scales, resulting in the term “crisis” most often used to describe the situation. Latching onto the sensational nature of the terminology of “crisis” as spoken by scientists (Bellwood 2004; Riegl et al 2009; Young 2007), the popular press and media outlets also typically frame reefs and reef creatures as existing in ecological “crisis,” with an inevitable downward trend, requiring more scientific attention and immediate action to circumvent grave, costly, and reverberating long-term consequences (Bell et al 2006; Bellwood 2004; Pandolfi et al 2003; Sapp 1999; Wilkinson 2008). Another common slant of a reef story in the popular press engages in the idea of mitigation success that is attributed to the enclosure of this commons space in the form of parks or regulatory structures. Often, stories of reef ecosystem enclosures in are steeped in suspicion, mistrust and control that results in territorial conflict and marginalization and misinterpretations of non-traditional knowledges and beliefs (Neumann 1998; Trist 2000; Walley 2004). The quandary that delineates reef ecosystem conservation efforts in particular is that there is no apparent scientific consensus on the causes of reef degradation or certainties regarding the effects of the stressors, nor how they may be linked to larger feedback systems that affect the entire ecosystem. It is therefore unclear which measures would effectively mediate reef deterioration, nor how to determine what exactly constitutes a “healthy” coral reef, even with the notable progress made in understanding coral reef ecology and the focused efforts to generate sound conservation policy, particularly over the last 25 years (Briggs 2006; Ginsburg 2008; Ritchie 2008) (See Chapter 3). Yet despite the significant scientific

73 advances made in understanding these systems, debates persist in not only the details of the scientific facts that should shoulder reef management schemes (e.g. Aronson et al 2003; Hughes et al 2003; Pandolfi et al 2003; Pandolfi et al 2005), but also which type of management schemes should be championed, which can be defined as effective, and how to navigate regional differences in management ideologies (Brody et al. 2004; Jameson et al. 2002; Jentoft et al. 2007; Jones 2001; McClanahan et al. 2006; Mora 2006; Sala et al. 2002; Young 2007). The geographies of coral reef conservation science thus display both common and extreme characteristics of all environmental dilemmas that have spilled into the twenty-first century as problems that are influenced by human behavior and cultural anthropologies. Like most all environmental concerns (e.g. global climate change, fisheries, energy sources), living system that are framed as in “crisis” require greater attention and immediate action (Bellwood 2004). However, for reefs in particular, environmental policy decisions have been difficult to make, and even more difficult to enforce, and continue to be the driving force of scientific enquiry while conservation efforts, no matter how well scientifically grounded, have not shown the success that had been anticipated to halt their declines and promote their recovery and health (Hughes et al 2002; McClanahan 2006; Russ and Zeller 2003). The marine nature of this environment and physical and material hardships involved in conducting scientific work there, and the necessary logistical support and highly specialized skills required by individuals who study them, places reefs as a particularly extreme example of global environmental problems. 3.9 The Epistemic Community of Coral Reef Professionals

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 fairly small. Currently, the number of individuals enlisted in the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) coral-list serve number at 6000 members and entertain lively discussion of issues concerning coral reef science, education, management, field-reports (Hendee 2009). This population is not only reef scientists and professionals, but also consultants, NGO and IGO staff, and generally anyone who is interested in coral reef issues. Figures from the International Society for Coral Reef Studies (ISCRS), the largest and most involved professional society for coral reef researchers of all disciplines, serve as a low-ball estimate of the number of people who devote some level of interest specifically to reefs: while membership numbers fluctuate between about 800 to 1000, the ISCRS conference attendance in 2008 was around 3500 people (Aronson 2009). Because of this relatively small scientific community, many reef scientists and professionals commit to several roles, such as sitting on a board of directors for a park, or on an editorial staff of a journal, while also serving as faculty in a university. This tendency implies a tight and highly connected network and is a prominent structural feature within the scale-free network through which coral reef science and policies are framed, sanctioned and implemented (Barabasi 2003; Bodin et al 2006; Kleypas and Eakin 2007).

74 4. RESEARCH METHOD & DESIGN

4.1. The Theoretical Underpinnings of Q-Methodology

Q-methodology is a means by which subjectivities can be explored from a wide variety of angles. This mixed method differs greatly from the more common R-type methodologies, which result in a statistical analysis of predefined independent variables as they are perceived by the researcher. Instead, Q- methodology reveals a deep-seated set of factors or viewpoints that direct how people feel about a particular issue as it is debated and understood by the respondents. As a result, Q-methodology is also known as “operant subjectivity” because it engages the operant’s subjective tendencies about a particular topic on which one has an opinion. This mathematically-based, interpretive technique provides a flexible but systematic and rigorous method of enquiry into a debated topic, and thus can serve as a useful tool in navigating contentious topics, such as environmental issues––particularly those involving conservation and which have been intensely politicized (Addams and Proops 2001; Brown 1980). Q-Methodology was chosen for this study because of its ability to delineate some basic perspectives or core beliefs through which a particular community filters their conclusions about an issue, especially in this exploration of coral reef conservation as understood by the scientists. Because science is essentially a standardized process of trusted observations, conclusions are ideally drawn from objective and unbiased truth-claims; however, it is becoming apparent, especially in issues of conservation that intersect financial and political risks, that there are deeper attitudes that are influential, acting as filters through which information is processed. Crudely put, the outcome results in “sides” in debates. This method applies and counts on a level of discursive analysis given its reliance on understanding subtextual elements, which are important to distill attitudes from a range of opinions, and so can be applied as a tool to discover what these subjective filters or viewpoints are. This method is grounded in a philosophy, most often traced to Wittgenstein (1971), which maintains that an individual’s relationship to one’s own expressions is wholly different from everyone else’s and can not be understood in the same way. Because we picture facts to ourselves in terms of personal meanings, our “factual images” are therefore models of reality as we see it, filtered through unique histories, assumptions, and expectations, which are not necessarily part of a shared image (Wittgenstein 1971). Therefore it is not feasible to presume that meaning is shared by default because of the inherently symbolic and self-referential nature of language and communication (Brown 1980). In this work, Q-methodology serves to deconstruct the deep-seated biases inherent in coral reef environmental discourse into clearly-defined primary elements that are commonly called “attitudes” or “beliefs” and which are not explicitly stated, nor necessarily self-perceived by the community that constructs them (Barry and Proops 1999; Brown 1983; Donner 2001; McKeown and Thomas 1988).

75 4.1.1. The Structure of Subjectivities 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 (Brown 1980): • Opinions are defined as self-referent statements accepted on the grounds short of proof. They pertain instead to unresolved issues, uncertainties, doubt (or “polarized certainties27”) and other ideas on the basis of which appeals are normally made to some authority, and which are often grounded in beliefs or values. • The population of statements can be drawn from several sources: images, interviews, texts, or a combination of these. 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. • Attitudes are operantly defined and formally modeled as factors. • Beliefs (and values/viewpoints) are a result of the explanations of factors. The general structure is shown in Figure 4.1.

∞ Opinions (Q-statements)

Attitudes (factors)

Beliefs (explanations)

adapted from Brown (1980)

Figure 4.1: The Structure of Subjectivity: Beliefs form attitudes, neither of which are generally explicitly stated. However, the expression of those attitudes comes in an infinite variety of explicit opinions. Opinions can be traced to particular attitudes, which in a respondent population that shares some interest in the issue, will usually number no more than six. Underlying beliefs are interpreted as shared attitudes or perspectives on some issue and are characterized and described by the factor-scores for each survey statement. In any range of attitudes, one will consistently find some opinions that are held in common (red circles). Q-method seeks to find these commonalities among respondents by sorting and thereby preferencing statements.

27 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 discussed), 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.

76 Initially, it may not seem plausible to organize what could be infinity opinions into somewhat generalizable attitudes, however Keynes‘(1921) “principle of limited independent variety” does just that. His determination maintains that in any sphere of inquiry regarding facts or propositions, the number of those propositions will be infinite; however, the number of what he called “laws of necessary connection” to those facts or propositions will fall into a definable number of groups. In other words, despite the potential for an unwieldy number of opinions about an issue, they are rooted in groups of common beliefs or “laws of necessary connection” out of which they emerge and can be defined by a limited number of characteristic attitudes that reflect particular beliefs (Keynes 1921; Stephenson 1953). For Keynes (1921), these epistemological underpinnings were important to understand because he was seeking to explain why long-term economic forecasting is simply impossible and thus surmised a sociological influence. He determined, in fact, that it is because of the human factors of perception of knowledge and associated behaviors that are involved in decision-making that skew models of economic outcomes. Basically, Keynes showed that when viewing what people see as knowledge, facts or “truth” amount to filtered understandings, which are generally called perceptions; and it is perceptions on which people act, which to Keynes, supported the consistent shortcomings of accuracy over longer time-spans in what should otherwise be sound economic models. He concluded that because knowledge is achieved through experience, understanding (ideas filtered through meanings), and perception (direct acquaintance with features of meaning and logic), combined with “intuition”(which transfers experience to knowledge), facts are in essence social constructions that are highly dependent on what one is exposed to, i.e. their environment (Butos and Koppl 1997). Although an infinite number of opinions can exist, attitudes within a community exposed to similar discourses or environments are therefore finite in number and essentially based on a small number of fundamental or core beliefs. With this premise, it becomes apparent why Q- methodology requires only the number of respondents to cover the core attitudes or beliefs that generate the infinite number of possible statements, and that the matrix-structure and application of factor analysis is a legitimate and, in fact, an ideal manner in which to determine them (Stephenson 1935; 1953). A key characteristic of Q-Methodology therefore is that this method 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. This method forces a hierarchy of issues, all of which are commonly discussed as “most important,” “most urgent,” “most destructive,” and thereby can reveal which issues are 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 in that it forces preferencing and exposes sources of contention. Given that R-methods do not allow a preferencing without an enormous number of respondents (and which also explains more about the demographics of the individuals who are surveyed), 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 urgent. This urgency-overload allowed by the more common R-method

77 surveys plays a role in the paralysis of effective change in policy and planning in environmental conservation issues (Rydin 2003). Additionally, through this preferencing of statements among the factors, issues filtered through Q can not 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.

4.1.2. How Q Works In Q-method, respondents organize statements into a researcher-defined matrix that relates to extremes of a debate or issue. Different from the typical R-techniques (usually Likert-scaled instruments), the variables in Q-methodology are the people performing the sorts, not the statements that they’re sorting. The people significantly loaded on a given factor, therefore, are assumed to share a common perspective regarding the way they feel about particular statements. The factor therefore represents a “common individual” that is represented by the manner in which participants sorted the statements. This methodology, also called operant subjectivity, differs from the operational definitions of scaling and questionnaire methodologies in several important ways: (from Brown, 1980). • The subjective operant, or respondent, is neither right nor wrong, nor “voting” by survey choices, but simply expressing a viewpoint, unlike a scale response. For this reason, the operant approach has little use for traditional concepts of validity. • Unlike scales or tests, operants are not dependent on researcher-defined meaning. Operational definitions during conventional R-type surveys or questionnaires are premised on the idea of a shared value, goal, idea or definition, without necessarily making explicit what those shared ideologies should be. By replacing the subject’s meaning with the investigator’s, the investigator is forced to ground interpretations in predefined constraints rather than on the basis of subject- behavior and expression, as Q-method allows.

Switching the axes to work from R to Q techniques also changes the interpretive significance. Put in terms of R and Q techniques: In R, one is normally dealing with objectively scorable traits, which take meaning from the postulation of individual differences between persons, e.g., that individual a has more of trait A than does individual b; alternatively in Q, one is dealing fundamentally with the individual’s subjectivity, which takes meaning in terms of the proposition that individual a values trait A more than B. Although still in its infancy in potential applications in geographic enquiries, this method is particularly useful to explore constructivist accounts of social and natural realities because of its power to deconstruct attitudes embedded in environmental debates (Eden et al 2005; Robbins and Krueger 2000). As a result, this method has an additional capacity to identify social discourses which represent the internalized, and mostly unarticulated rationales that drive decisions and judgements (Addams and Proops 2001). ! Q-Methodology is a Q-based statistical method in which subjectivities can be quantitatively ranked by applying a variation of factor analysis called component analysis (Brown 1993). This method is useful for issues about which there exists great diversity in opinion or uncertainty because it can be used

78 to determine, quantitatively, how exactly the points of the debate are perceived by a “collective individual” whose subjectivity is represented by factors that were calculated and derived from the data supplied by the various respondents. This method provides a flexible procedure for which subjectivity of realities [sic] can be quantified within an operant framework. 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 as their issues have become more popularized topics of debate. This method has its own academic journal called Operant Subjectivity which publishes research that applies or advances this technique, and enthusiasts can sign up on a 600-member strong list-serve (Brown 2009), and join a professional organization (The International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity or ISSSS). Developed as a technique by William Stephenson in his 1935 paper in Nature and expanded in a later book (Stephenson 1953), 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. 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. This method 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. 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 matrix of agreement in which the concourse is sorted; 2) the population or the p-set––those who will be sorting the statements as respondents, which is a selected community of individuals who contain subjectivities about the topic; and 3) the statistical analysis that consists of a factor analysis of the data and an interpretation of the results from those factors, which represent the core perspectives or attitudes; and the ranking of statements through this sorting process that can be used to indicate levels of consensus. Among the most comprehensive primers for Q methodology are McKeown and Thomas (1988), Brown (1980), Donner (2001), and Addams (2001).

4.1.3 Q-Methodology 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, are highly opinionated, subjectively-filtered expressions of what respondents read and debate or discuss as facts. Many are highly politicized and favored through “convention” (as evidenced by their history as a scientific topic) and others are still undergoing the normative processes of scientific validation (that are

79 motivated by eliminating uncertainty). Despite desire for pure objectivity, scientific truths about the environment are deeply and emotionally connected to the community that creates and debates them (Hinchcliffe 2007; Latour 1983). As environmental claims are made, “facts” are generated 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 and construct the factual, yet also contradictory, scientific discourses of coral reef environmental conservation seen in the construction of its crisis (Bellwood 2004; Livingstone 2003; Mora et al 2006; Pyenson and Sheets-Pyenson 2003). The power of Q in this research is in its ability to deconstruct deeper meaning and attached beliefs or attitudes, all of which are differently internalized and expressed in the epistemic network that shares a declared common goal of reef conservation (Latour and Woolgar 1979; Onuf 1983; Wittgenstein 1971). Therefore, although the concourse statements in this research are grounded in “factual” positivist science (Popper 1968), the statements contain an enormous variety of meanings that are filtered through distinct viewpoints about how to accommodate facts in the human-environment system. It is the subjective nature of environmental truth-claims inherent in this process, and the misappropriation of uncertainty regarding consequences that has proven most difficult to approach in academic terms (Adams 2001; Hinchcliffe 2007; Latour 1983, 2004), making Q-Methodology especially suited for potential progress in navigating the coral reef environmental crisis.

4.2 Research Questions & Design

This work applies Q-methodology on the community of coral reef scientists and management professionals to determine the underlying viewpoints that are buried in the discourses of core debates in reef conservation as they are expressed within these networks. Issues of coral conservation today center on ecological debates that attribute causation to the decline of these ecosystems and decisions regarding the best policies and management plans. Like most ecosystem-decline debates, the most common discourses in reef conservation science are concerned with determining the stressors are that have driven reefs into a state of decline, seeking causation to assign their accountable agents, and devising the best possible policy, management solutions or necessary use-restrictions to mitigate or halt the apparent downward trend in ecosystem health. Two Q-sorts were applied in this work to address these issues. The first was concentrated on scientific issues as they are debated among science and drew on those issues that underpin the premises used for management. The second dealt with ideas and policy strategies that are often applied, presumed or suggested as ways to mitigate reef decline. In this research, Q-methodology was employed to directly answer several questions that may provide a new insight on the coral reef conservation crisis: 1) What are the core foundational perspectives or viewpoints from which coral reef science and conservation debates emerge?

80 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? To answer these questions, I conducted two separate q-methodology exercises with a group of reef scientists and managers. One focused on interpretations regarding factors impacting the health of reefs while the other focused on potential management solutions.

4.2.1 Concourse Sources The concourse creation or collection of statements that make up the survey (also called q-sample), is the most important step for the researcher (Eden 1995), who should have a solid understanding of the issue being sampled to ensure better acceptance within the desired community. The Q-sort conducted for this study focused in general on the expression of scientific truth-claims as they relate to scientific understandings and management issues 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 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. The contexts of the statements that make up the survey, also called the concourse or q-sample, were topically derived from peer-reviewed journal articles that centered around environmental and social issues regarding reef science and conservation. Peer-reviewed articles provided the main source for the concourse and statements were harvested from journals such Nature, Science, Coral Reefs, Bulletin of Marine Science, Conservation Biology, Marine Policy, Ecological Economics, Ocean & Coastal Management, and Marine Pollution Bulletin. Statement issues choices were also sharpened by interviews during my attendance at the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium “Reefs for the Future,” held in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida in July of 2008. This meeting, held only once every four years, is one of the most popular gatherings for coral reef scientists, park managers and policy professionals, commonly hosting around 3000 attendees of mainly reef scientists and management professionals. Topics that drew large attention, attracted debates, and were incorporated into casual conversations by attendees weighed heavily in statement choices and development. Additional sources for deciding on issues and how statements should be worded were drawn from older texts and rare publications, as well as my personal history in this field, which together provided privileged historical contexts and insight into the evolution of topics. The basic elements that would support the statements were therefore decided based on a combination topics expressed in these resources, which provided a complete contextual framework of coral reef science epistemologies and ontologies as they are presented and discussed in the structured settings of current scientific peer-reviewed issues in coral reef conservation. Media news stories, although having some influence on the perception of which topics are most relevant to the public, were not crucial in designing these statements mostly because of the institutional influences and hurdles that create “news:” the wishes of the owners of the media source; the perceived

81 demand of the story (the audience); and the bureaucratic pressures and normal working practices inherent in the protocol of mass media (Rydin 2003). The media would not be considered a reliable source for accurate information to scientists from whom this information is “translated” and transfigured to comprise a “news story.” Therefore, a story “achieving” a place in the mass-media spotlight, although important in that it reveals the depth to which this issue has penetrated into the public imagination as relevant and is a record of how crisis is constructed, is not an accurate depiction of the issues, its origins, nor its epistemological or ontological debates. Ultimately, the topic has to be considered interesting in the eyes of editors and producers in popular and news media, which most often includes unusual or “quirky” topics (e.g. whale sex), alarmism or foreboding predictions with explicit impacts (e.g. hurricane forecasts), beauty or “cuteness” (e.g. dolphin rescue), expense or risk (e.g. deep-sea submersibles; shark research), and drawn-out controversy (e.g. global climate change). Additionally, the public emergence of scientific news and environmental debates in newspapers and popular, non-peer reviewed sources indicates that reefs have become “interesting” or “relevant” enough to take up time on television and radio, or space in print. These popular media sources, although unreliable to draw statements from, nevertheless provide a testament to how core ideas and discourses about reefs have evolved and endured through the epistemic network and generated enough media fodder to successfully radiate beyond the epistemic community of coral reef professionals.

4.2.2 The Statement Topics ! The science concourse consists of 36 statements and the management concourse consists of 43 statements. These numbers seemed appropriate to handle the topics this research attempted to confront, but were evaluated as not being too tedious or exhausting for respondents to handle. To construct the statements, first the topic was decided, and then the wording of the statements. The Q-sort used in this study applied statements that are grounded in claims of truth that have passed a highly standardized set of rules and gatekeepers, and have gained legitimacy through surviving this process. Most of the statements in this concourse are composed from how the material facts are interpreted through the minds whose training for knowledge-seeking is purely empirical, steeped in ambitions of objectivity, and who represent a profession that embeds a reputation or standard of trust. The Q-sorts focused on highly visible and debated ontologies of science (survey 1) and management (survey 2) in coral reef ecosystem conservation and research. The statements used in each sort expressed opposing or shifted viewpoints of core tensions of uncertainty, which are widely debated within the scientific community and generally known about in the popular media. Detailed investigations of the processes of scientific publishing and how scientific concepts emerge in the media have been conducted by several scholars (Latour and Woolgar 1979; Latour 1983), however some generalities about communication can provide a rough measure of that topic’s popularity. When a scientific topic achieves public familiarity, it has gone through several steps that start most basically with the scientist’s “eureka” of progress and commonly includes an interpretation of the findings and implications of the results. Then the scientist’s contentions must pass muster with peers, if the results will be published and achieve a

82 formal venue, that also legitimizes their productivity, provides a forum to entertain debate, and at the very least documents something new or different––otherwise the entire exercise of discovery could be perceived as pointless. The core topics that are present in both the scientific literature and popular press regarding reefs are debates that focus on the following: 1) development of coastal areas and reef-rich regions, which includes coastal pollution, population, and tourism, particularly in developing countries, 2) fisheries, and 3) many renditions of global climate change such as ocean warming, hurricanes and acidification.

These core controversies provided the general topics and statements were derived to mirror these popular discourses of reef decline and mitigation, most of which attributed human agency. Scientists dealing with environmental issues in reef regions often attribute causation to consequences of human proximity to to this ecosystem, for example, increasing coastal populations and irresponsible resource use (Kleypas and Eakin 2007; Jackson & Sala 2001). The “hottest” issues are those where causation can be widely applied in both scale and perspective, such as causes and effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) in oceans (Aronson and Precht 2006; McWilliams et al 2005). Although there is a tendency to moderate extreme statements in the Q-sort, such as those that contain words such as most, least, biggest, inevitable, this was preserved in the concourse to reflect the tone in which these ideas are framed in both peer-reviewed references and popular media sources. 4.2.3 Statement Sampling ! Many statements contain several ideas, which although discouraged in R-type of surveys, is necessary in this methodology. In fact, because the issues that are being examined are stated in complex ways, and expressed through various resources in this manner, they are preferred over statements that are too simplified. The R-type of survey often relies on large respondent numbers because it seeks to define populations of people who may believe one idea over another, but because this research sought to determine how people order the debates not based on whether the statement is “true” factually, but how it is contextualized, the issues needed to retain their multi-dimensionality. For example, although statement 20 is about the problem of population, it also confronts the issue of whether better understanding of social factors are part of the solution and therefore questions the respondents attitude about society as part of the system. Statements can be composed in a structured or unstructured way (McKeown and Thomas 1988). However, a semi-structured method better achieves the goals for this study. Because this study was not attempting to glean any predictive measures or political decisions, a more rigid and systematic protocol was not necessary. In this case, the unstructured method provides the flexibility to detect the complexities and nuances. Different from the issues, the statements, or q-sample is always a representation of communication contexts and because of that cannot contain all communication

83 possibilities. Following the protocol outlined in McKeown and Thomas (1988), this research is based on an unstructured sampling method and statements were chosen based on the issues that seem to be most often discussed.

! Science Survey. Although many Q-studies use statements that were obtained from preliminary interviews with the respondents, the statements in this study were amalgamations of the topic and the tone expressed in their exposition. For example, the debate over the causes and consequences of acidification are centered not on the validation of this particular stressor, but rather was implicit through mentioning the associated feedback systems that operate in such an environment (acidification is “natural” vs. anthropogenic), and discuss predictions of outcomes (extinction and ecosystem collapse? or ecosystem shift?). These variables are represented in the science-survey q-sample with statement numbers 5, 6, and 12. This logic of statement generation was also applied with creating other statements for both surveys. Judging by the manuscripts and publications, all scientists view population as a problem. Although there are no explicit explanations of exactly how this increase in population is the problem other than “more pressure on the environment.” One can question whether an increasing population means, in general, “more use” of the coast or its resources? More visits to the reefs? More tourism or more waste? As a result of this ambiguous connection to what all should assume, this problem can be perceived in several ways: • population of recreational and subsistence users on a reef (in developed countries); • population of people living on a coastline near a reef area; • population of people’s whose sewage and refuse get emptied into the seas; • population driving resource extraction to increasingly unsustainable levels and more fishing vessels; • global population that is connected to being bad by its association with global climate change and general unwillingness to “do something.”

Therefore if “What is the problem on this reef?” is stated to be “increasing human populations,” the specific association is rarely explicitly stated, yet often assumed to be mutual among those giving the same reply, despite the variety of different reasonings. The statements that represent the population question are numbers 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20, 22 and 24. Many of these statements seek to pull out the buried reasons that are attributed to “increasing population,” for example numbers 4 and 15; while other statements, 20, 22, and 24, test the of “inevitability” of population increases and its consequences. Although most commercial fisheries do not occur on reefs, these ecosystems are often stated as being crucial for the survival and support of global fisheries in serving as nurseries, breeding grounds, and the sole resource for small-scale, and subsistence economies that support a significant population in both developed and developing countries. The position of reefs as a local structure relevant to global systems

84 is also expressed in publications by the discussion of reef “connectivity” and its role in regional reef- health. Statements that represent this debate include numbers 7, 11, and 17.

Management Survey. Many researches in science, especially when funded by larger inter- disciplinary organizations, require to state in their proposals the relevance to the human condition the project hopes to address. Many scientific journal articles therefore also include impacts or interpretations by the authors on what sort of implications or future human concerns their research addresses. Management typologies or preferencing management styles were not of interest in this case because of their specificity to geographic regions specifically, for example, the prevalence of community or indigenous systems in Oceania, where pre-colonial populations are still represented in place, versus the open access systems prevalent in the Caribbean, mainly because of their colonial histories. Instead, general perceptions and overarching debates of management issues were chosen. For management issues, the questions revolve around: 1) implementation issues (enforcement mechanisms, political corruption); 2) management styles and use-regimes (community management, fisheries); 3) best locations for marine protected areas (MPAs) and inherent geographic difference.

Questions of the best enforcement or implementation mechanisms for MPAs are a concern, especially in developing countries. This is expressed in statements 16, 17, and 40. Currently, more recognition is given to functioning customary tenure systems of reefs in some areas of Oceania. Debates over community and participatory practices (and indigenous systems) is becoming a critical example of top-down strategies that are often those applied in MPAs. Tensions about this issue are exemplified in statements 4, 18, and 31. Geographic difference is also a constant underlying theme, given reefs are generally in the territories of relatively poor and developing countries which makes their needs and struggles very different from that of MPAs in the U.S. or Australia; while geographic connections are also frequently mentioned and represented by statements 14, 22, 23 among others. 4.2.4 The Survey Instrument: The Q-Sort Matrix The Q-sort concourse focused on scientific (survey questions, n=36) and management (survey questions, n=43) debates about the current state of coral reefs, predictions, and conservation ideas. Statements were derived from what are considered key publications, published conversations, and publications that are heavily citied among the network. The sort was conducted by the respondents electronically using Flash Q and was housed on a server at the Florida State University. Respondents could link to the survey from their email invitation and complete the sort at their leisure. A factor analysis was then applied to the data using the statistical open source software package “R”. The sort structure with a normal distribution was useful to allow for a small number of extremes so that respondents would be forced to carefully consider their strongest notions. This sufficiently

85 restricted scheme forced a more careful sorting and preferencing of “pet ideas” or favorite issues by permitting only one extreme (-5/+5) 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 +1 range). Respondents were asked to sort levels of agreement and provided an explanation that the labels were relative, and not absolute (least/-5 to most/+5). Table 4.1 describes the Q-sort matrix. See Appendix (A2) for a screen shot of the Flash-Q survey used.

Table 4.1: Q-sort structure: Envision an upside-down pyramid of boxes. The scale of agreement indicates the level of intensity, i.e. -5 meaning least agree or disagree; +5 meaning most strongly agree) across the top. The “number of statements” row shows how many “slots” are available below that particular agreement level, e.g., one statement is the maximum allowable in the -5,+5 columns. This structure normalizes the data. a: science: 36 statements:

scale of agreement -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

no. of statements 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 3 2 1

b: management: 43 statements

scale of agreement -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

no. of statements 1 2 4 5 6 7 6 5 4 2 1

4.2.5 The Respondents: The P-Set The power of Q-methodology in part rests on the fact that it does not require a large number of respondents to generate a valid result. In fact, it is recommended in most primers that your number of participants not exceed half the number of statements in the concourse (McKeown and Thomas 1988). The reasons for this, although rarely explicitly stated, have emerged on the list-serve as discussions. One reason for the adequacy of a small number of participants boils down to method itself. Unlike R-type of surveys, the statements are being scrutinized in Q, not the characteristics or demographic of the respondents. In R, one requires a large number of respondents to get a result that has statistical relevance and can be confidently said to represent a significant portion of the relevant population. In Q, the statements are being evaluated and ordered hierarchically, and therefore the community is important only in the sense that it must contain a complete set of the viewpoints and subjectivities that are being expressed through the concourse statements. Therefore the population is adequate as long as at least one individual in the population reflects the core traits in the way they conduct the sorting process of statement preferencing. Repetition of responses is not necessary because the number of people who believe or think x vs. y is not the question in a Q study but rather how x stands in relation to y; however, it is very important that the p-set is a specifically-targeted community that will best represent the viewpoints captured in the statements and is a crucial step in obtaining valid results. In this research, respondents or sorters were recruited first on the basis of their professional engagement with the discipline of coral reef science. Most respondents hold at least one graduate degree

86 or have specialized experience in a relevant scientific discipline and apply their research exclusively on understanding some aspect of coral reefs. Many sorters were solicited on the basis of browsing publishing frequency, especially those who publish in a wide diversity of references. Because of the network structure, respondents were preferenced if they had multiple affiliations with reef-related organizations, universities or research institutions, and a variety of professional associations. Several authors of the journal articles from which many of the statements were collectively derived were among those contacted and formally invited to conduct the Q-sort. The collection of respondents represent a wide-range of disciplines that are interested in the study of coral reefs. Although when it comes to reef science it is difficult to draw distinct separations on the disciplinary interests given they all intersect to some degree, the scientists and professionals who were solicited can be generally described as 1) marine biologists, chemists and biochemists who study the

current concerns regarding increasing partial pressure of CO2 in oceans and its effects; 2) biologists interested in coral spawning, reproduction patterns and spatial distribution of larvae, coral growth and disease, productivity, coral species interaction with their symbionts and ecology (zooxanthellae), species distribution and population dynamics, reef fisheries and ecosystem monitoring; 3) geologists, physical oceanographers and geomorphologists who study reefs on the basis of comparative structural evolution, ecosystem structure as it relates to long-term evolutionary trends, geophysical and geographical distribution and connections, and structural diversity and interaction with environments; and 4) socially- oriented professionals such as park managers and social scientists who study and observe human uses of reefs as they relate to socio-political conditions of place. The second criteria for choosing the respondents was to loosely reflect the relative emphasis of sub-disciplines within the community of “reef people.” 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 or biological science, while comparatively few work on social scientific aspects considered relevant to scientific endeavors, such as socio-cultural uses of reef resources or tenure systems. To reflect this occupational network demographic comprising the culture of coral reef science and management professionals, a greater number of scientists whose research is considered within the “hard sciences” make up the p-set, than who consider their work related to the social sciences. Respondents also included 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, retired/emeritus faculty, and experienced research assistants and technicians. 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, in order to eliminate any obvious sources of public relations related bias. In total, about 240 reef

87 professionals were contacted, introduced to the Q-sorting process, and asked about their willingness to participate in the study. From those, a reminder email was sent out to 87 people and included the URL links and identification codes to use in the surveys. In all, 34 people (40%) completed the science Q-sort survey and 31 people (36%) completed the management survey within the requested deadline.

4.2.6 Gathering Data: Flash Q Although a Q-sort can be conducted in face-to-face interviews, this project employed a free program called Flash Q, available at URL . This software is simply an online data-gathering tool that will email the results of the sorts. A simple html editor is used to modify the statements within the template provided, create the matrix, and include any demographic questions to be added. This survey instrument was housed on a server at Florida State University, which facilitated the process for respondents because they did not need to install any software or be inconvenienced by troubleshooting (that is often an inevitable part to installing new software and its attendant helper programs, e.g. Flash Player). The surveys could be accessed at any time by the respondents, and were thus a strong factor in receiving the relatively high percentage of responses. This method was preferred over the other available online Q-sorts because of its display of the matrix and its browser-based language (see Appendix A2 for screenshot of Flash Q survey format). Once respondents finished a survey, it was sent to me via email. Each respondent’s email was printed and the data entered as a table and saved as a .txt document. The text document tables were then imported into the open source statistical software program “R” (see Appendix A1 for program code).

4.2.7 Statistical Applications The R software is a powerful statistical tool, which as an open source program, is accessible to any operating system and most any individual with a need or desire to learn its basics. Enjoying a support network and online resources comparable to any commercial software product, this software was preferred over all other options. A program that is also popular among Q-Methodology studies called PQ Method embeds the necessary calculations and conducts some of the analysis for the operator, such as deciding factor loadings automatically. However, because of my privileged access to an expert resource in R, using this software was the logical choice. The data was originally run applying 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 factors, and inspecting the data to determine which number of factors seems to best describe the core attitudes among respondents, explained in further detail in the following section. Three factors were most appropriate for the science survey, while four factors emerged from the management survey. The factors and factor sorts are shown in the tables in Chapter 5. The R-Code is provided in Appendix A1. The R-consoles, which show the raw data and output for the science and management surveys are found in the Appendix as A2.

88 4.2.8 Determining the Number of Factors Determining the number of factors was based on two observations: the order of the sorted statements for the factors and the individual loadings. The data was run with a factor analysis containing 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 factors for comparison in the open source statistical software R. The first step to deciding on number of factors was to look at the statements that were sorted in the extremes (-/+5, 4 and 3). The statements in this position represent the strongest notions inherent in that factor and for the purposes of this research, should differ significantly. Given that this research attempted to delineate the most significant differences between the factors, when the sorted statements were in a similar position, then the lesser factor number was preferred. Then individuals’ factor loadings were examined. Factor loadings of roughly 0.35 and greater were considered significant, however this varied in some cases and consideration was also given to the relative values of differences between loadings. For example, in the science survey results, the factor loading scheme of respondent number 4040 was 0.088 / 0.029 / 0.314. Although the highest value is less than 0.35, it was still considered valid and attributed as loading on factor 3 because of the relative difference between all loading-values. Loadings that were ignored included respondents who did not load heavily on any factors and those who loaded heavily or equally on two (or more) factors. In every outcome, some respondents did not load cleanly on any factors, and thus represent some other factor that was not addressed by this concourse, yet influenced preferencing in this survey. That factor-scheme which presented the clearest loadings with the greatest number of respondents and the least number of ignored respondents (by displaying multiple loadings or no-loading) was chosen. Typically in a strictly structured Q-study the number of factors are strictly defined by a mathematically-based method that determines the number of factors by the eigenvalue (or “SS loadings” in the R-output). In this research, however, a more discursive approach was used and the number of factors was also decided by the way in which the content of the statements was separated: the least number of clear factors (statement order differs significantly) that described the most individual loadings (and fewest ignored responses) was sought.

89 5. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

The findings below are comprised of both the tables of results as well as short explanations of how to interpret the factors from each table. Comprehensive tables that show the general results are shown in Section 5.3. The loosely structured sampling method that was applied to devise the concourse allowed the main viewpoints that comprise the factors to freely emerge with less forcing within boundaries of expectations. Determining the number of clear factors became an iterative process of interpretation and re-examination of factor loadings as described in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.8. The output of functions run through R results in factor loadings by individuals, uniquenesses, order of statements by factors, and z-scores of the factor-rankings (see Appendix for R codes of applied functions). The tables in this chapter show the factor ranks by statements, the individual factors by statement rankings and associated z-scores, and a table of consensus and contention for each survey. The interpretation of the factor follows each factor table. For each survey––scientific issues and management issues––factors are described through the ordering of the statements and their associated meanings. These factors characterize the basic attitude or core foundations through which viewpoints and opinions are filtered in the community of respondents and provide insight about the attitudes that are contained within the population. The p-values described in each factor are the number of respondents who loaded on that particular factor. These values do not add up to the total number of respondents because some had to be “ignored.” As described in more detail in the Research Design and Methods section, ignored responses included those who either 1) loaded heavily on more than one factor, or 2) showed no clear loading on any factor. Factors can be thought of to represent an individual whose sort best represents foundational attitudes in the epistemic community regarding a sphere of inquiry. The factors (and their associated rankings of the statements) can be thought of as “common individuals” whose sorts represent the common attitude for each factor. The factor rankings can be applied not only in understanding the core attitudes that underlie the discourse, but can also indicate to what extent there is agreement or consensus about that particular topic between all of the factors. Despite the different conceptual foundations represented by the factors, there are some statements in the concourse in which factors rank in a similar way, which characterize agreement. Looking at the factor ranking numbers, the difference between the highest and lowest scores represents consensus or contention (“Gap”), while the rankings themselves provide some insight of how intensely or strongly this is felt. To derive consensus-status regarding the statements, the difference between the highest and lowest factor-rankings are applied to explain agreement or disagreement between factors. From this ranking, issues can be prioritized and organized by how important they are (numerically high factor scores) and how strong agreement or disagreement ranges in the community of respondents (low gap-values generally imply strong agreement among the factors about that issue).

90 5.1 Results: Science Survey

For the first survey on scientific issues, three factors best isolated and characterized the foundations through which debates are filtered and preferenced. The first table shows factor rankings for Factor 1 (F1), Factor 2 (F2), and Factor 3 (F3) by order of statement number. Subsequent tables show each of the factors by order of their individual rankings as well as their associated z-scores. The tables below show the statement rankings for each factor and associated z-scores. The total number of ignored responses for the science survey were eight out of thirty-three respondents. For the remainder of the respondent population, twelve individuals loaded on factor 1; five on factor 2; and eight on factor 3. The first table below shows how the factors ranked the statements, in order of the statements. This table is useful as an overview of how all the factors compare by the manner in which they rank the particular statement. When the statements are ordered by their z-scores (and associated factor rankings), the factor is interpreted based on its ranking of the statements. In the science issues survey, three factors were found to be most significant, each of which is explained below. The factors can be best explained by allowing them to represent a “common” individual. The individual’s perspective or attitude is mirrored within the placement of statements, or their sort-order. The tables below show the statement rankings for each of the three factors, followed by an explanation of the defining characteristics of that factor. One particularly clearly expressed common belief that existed among all factors was a deeply embedded Malthusian perspective. All three factors sorted statements that indicated population as the driving concern for every aspect of coral reef conservation and the ability of science to point towards solutions.

Table 5.1: Science Survey Factor Rankings. The rankings for each factor by the statement number. This table below provides an overview of how the particular factors ordered the statements by statement number.

# Statement F1 F2 F3

Medium and large-scale commercial overfishing adjacent to reef-rich areas (and MPAs) is 1 -2 -2 +1 the most significant contributing factor to the decline in reef health.

In most cases, it is the population density of the adjacent coastal community that poses 2 -1 0 +5 the greatest threat to the health of coral reefs.

Much of the reason for the large-scale decline of reef health seen in the Atlantic/ 3 Caribbean reefs is the limited diversity of flora and fauna as compared to Indo-Pacific reef -2 +1 -3 ecosystems.

4 The aquarium and curio market is a significant problem for reef health. -2 +4 +2

Ocean acidification attendant to current trends of climate change is the most urgent issue 5 +3 +5 -5 for the future of coral reef survival.

Although coral reef ecosystems are changing and will continue to do so, it is highly 6 doubtful that these changes will necessarily drive these systems to extinction in the long- +3 -4 +1 term future.

7 High connectivity among reefs confers resilience to perturbations. +1 +2 +3

91 Table 5.1 – continued # Statement F1 F2 F3

8 The healthiest reefs are those isolated in remote areas of the ocean, or far from land. +2 +2 +1

9 Destructive tourism practices on reef areas are a major factor in coral reef health decline. -4 0 +1

Coastal development in reef-rich areas is a purely localized problem for adjacent reefs, 10 0 -2 -2 and does not affect regional reef health.

It is not the volume of fishing activities themselves, but the fishing methods used on reefs 11 -1 +1 -3 that have shown to be more damaging to reef-health and sustainability.

The actual consequences of acidification are unclear, but are of minimal concern given 12 -4 -4 0 that ppCO2 has always fluctuated in oceans over geologic time.

Destructive tourism practices can be partially excused based on their contribution to local 13 -3 -1 -2 and regional economies.

14 The healthiest reefs are most likely to be those with a very high level of connectivity. 0 0 +2

Localized physical destruction of reefs (e.g. boat groundings, anchor damage) are minor 15 +4 -1 -1 issues when it comes to the health of reefs overall.

Coastal development has played the main role in accelerating the decline of reef health in 16 0 +1 +4 both developed and developing nations.

Large-scale poaching and illegal commercial fishing activities are extremely important 17 -3 +1 0 problems facing reef survival.

Achieving a high resilience on a reef is more important than its connectivity in terms of 18 +1 -1 -2 reef health.

The increasing volume of long-distance reef-fishing efforts places at risk the most pristine 19 +1 +3 +2 reef regions in the world.

Resource scarcity and reef degradation is a natural consequence of growing population 20 pressures, and thus it is important to investigate cultural patterns of exploitation and uses +2 +1 +3 if environmental stresses on reefs are to be successfully modified.

Coral reefs as we have known them are showing signs of decline worldwide, however the 21 +4 -3 +2 ecosystem is experiencing a shift, not an extinction.

Misuse and over-exploitation of the marine environment is inevitable as a consequence of 22 the sheer increase in the population density on coastlines, so reef conditions will continue +3 +3 +4 to decline unless drastic regulations are put in place.

The global stresses (e.g. bleaching, increased susceptibility to disease, warming oceans) 23 +5 0 0 imposed on reefs are the main causes for their decline.

Without a better understanding of human patterns of use of coral reefs, science-based 24 +1 -1 +3 conservation efforts will inevitably fail.

Tourism and attendant coastal development is good for reefs as it provides the local 25 community with a means of alternative capital growth and therefore alleviates exploitation 0 0 -1 pressures on nearby reefs.

Many long-deforested regions have relatively flourishing reef systems (e.g. Barbados), 26 +1 -3 -1 implying that deforestation is more of a short-term concern for the health of reef systems.

The poor accuracy of fisheries models (recruitment/population) on which catch limits are 27 0 -2 -4 established can be faulted as the reason for over-exploitation of fisheries in reef systems.

92 Table 5.1 – continued # Statement F1 F2 F3

Given coastal subsistence communities have been fishing their reefs for decades, they 28 -2 -2 -4 cannot be faulted for the decline in reef health reported today.

One of the problems in reef science overall is the limited amount of field observations and 29 +2 -3 -3 monitoring to make decisive statements about actual reef condition.

Maintaining (or achieving) a high level of biodiversity is the best way to insure the long- 30 -1 +4 0 term survival of reefs.

Increased CO2 in the oceans is compensated, at least in part, by other phenomena such 31 as increased phytoplankton blooms, and therefore has had thus far a negligible affect on -1 -5 0 coral reefs.

Reef fisheries in developed countries (like the US) are in better condition than those in 32 0 +3 -2 developing countries.

Predictions about the decline of reef health that were made 20 years ago (more or less) 33 +2 +2 -1 have generally come true.

Oil spills and ocean dumping are among the top significant contributing factors to global 34 -5 0 -1 reef-health decline.

35 Invasive species are an important health risk for coral reef ecosystems. -3 +2 +1

The subsistence lifestyles of coastal people living in depressed economies pose the 36 -1 -1 0 greatest threat to reef health and resilience.

5.1.1 Factor 1: Gaian Communalists This factor can be viewed as seeing environmental problems as a final mosaic image that is composed of smaller parts. In the Gaian tradition, these smaller parts are viewed as part of a whole, however in themselves as unique parts are not as influential. Each part has its place and is not necessarily interchangeable because of its particular circumstances, such as development status.

Table 5.2: Science Survey Factor 1: statement rankings and z-scores.

z- # Statement F1 scores

The global stresses (e.g. bleaching, increased susceptibility to disease, warming oceans) 23 +5 2.063 imposed on reefs are the main causes for their decline.

Coral reefs as we have known them are showing signs of decline worldwide, however the 21 +4 1.780 ecosystem is experiencing a shift, not an extinction.

Localized physical destruction of reefs (e.g. boat groundings, anchor damage) are minor 15 +4 1.462 issues when it comes to the health of reefs overall.

Ocean acidification attendant to current trends of climate change is the most urgent issue for 5 +3 1.373 the future of coral reef survival.

Although coral reef ecosystems are changing and will continue to do so, it is highly doubtful 6 +3 1.079 that these changes will necessarily drive these systems to extinction in the long-term future.

93 Table 5.2 – continued z- # Statement F1 scores

Misuse and over-exploitation of the marine environment is inevitable as a consequence of 22 the sheer increase in the population density on coastlines, so reef conditions will continue to +3 0.850 decline unless drastic regulations are put in place.

Predictions about the decline of reef health that were made 20 years ago (more or less) 33 +2 0.711 have generally come true.

One of the problems in reef science overall is the limited amount of field observations and 29 +2 0.622 monitoring to make decisive statements about actual reef condition.

8 The healthiest reefs are those isolated in remote areas of the ocean, or far from land. +2 0.597

Resource scarcity and reef degradation is a natural consequence of growing population 20 pressures, and thus it is important to investigate cultural patterns of exploitation and uses if +2 0.587 environmental stresses on reefs are to be successfully modified.

7 High connectivity among reefs confers resilience to perturbations. +1 0.505

The increasing volume of long-distance reef-fishing efforts places at risk the most pristine 19 +1 0.464 reef regions in the world.

Many long-deforested regions have relatively flourishing reef systems (e.g. Barbados), 26 +1 0.404 implying that deforestation is more of a short-term concern for the health of reef systems.

Achieving a high resilience on a reef is more important than its connectivity in terms of reef 18 +1 0.401 health.

Without a better understanding of human patterns of use of coral reefs, science-based 24 +1 0.249 conservation efforts will inevitably fail.

The poor accuracy of fisheries models (recruitment/population) on which catch limits are 27 0 0.243 established can be faulted as the reason for over-exploitation of fisheries in reef systems.

Tourism and attendant coastal development is good for reefs as it provides the local 25 community with a means of alternative capital growth and therefore alleviates exploitation 0 0.108 pressures on nearby reefs.

Reef fisheries in developed countries (like the US) are in better condition than those in 32 0 -0.081 developing countries.

Coastal development has played the main role in accelerating the decline of reef health in 16 0 -0.105 both developed and developing nations.

14 The healthiest reefs are most likely to be those with a very high level of connectivity. 0 -0.187

Coastal development in reef-rich areas is a purely localized problem for adjacent reefs, and 10 0 -0.190 does not affect regional reef health.

It is not the volume of fishing activities themselves, but the fishing methods used on reefs 11 -1 -0.193 that have shown to be more damaging to reef-health and sustainability.

Increased CO2 in the oceans is compensated, at least in part, by other phenomena such as 31 increased phytoplankton blooms, and therefore has had thus far a negligible affect on coral -1 -0.276 reefs.

In most cases, it is the population density of the adjacent coastal community that poses the 2 -1 -0.355 greatest threat to the health of coral reefs.

94 Table 5.2 – continued z- # Statement F1 scores

Maintaining (or achieving) a high level of biodiversity is the best way to insure the long-term 30 -1 -0.404 survival of reefs.

The subsistence lifestyles of coastal people living in depressed economies pose the greatest 36 -1 -0.435 threat to reef health and resilience.

Medium and large-scale commercial overfishing adjacent to reef-rich areas (and MPAs) is 1 -2 -0.702 the most significant contributing factor to the decline in reef health.

4 The aquarium and curio market is a significant problem for reef health. -2 -0.769

Given coastal subsistence communities have been fishing their reefs for decades, they 28 -2 -0.809 cannot be faulted for the decline in reef health reported today.

Much of the reason for the large-scale decline of reef health seen in the Atlantic/Caribbean 3 -2 -0.929 reefs is the limited diversity of flora and fauna as compared to Indo-Pacific reef ecosystems.

Large-scale poaching and illegal commercial fishing activities are extremely important 17 -3 -0.956 problems facing reef survival.

Destructive tourism practices can be partially excused based on their contribution to local 13 -3 -0.973 and regional economies.

35 Invasive species are an important health risk for coral reef ecosystems. -3 -1.067

9 Destructive tourism practices on reef areas are a major factor in coral reef health decline. -4 -1.250

The actual consequences of acidification are unclear, but are of minimal concern given that 12 -4 -1.723 ppCO2 has always fluctuated in oceans over geologic time.

Oil spills and ocean dumping are among the top significant contributing factors to global 34 -5 -2.094 reef-health decline.

! In general, the viewpoint for this factor is that global issues, not local problems, are the obstacles to effective reef conservation, and are a reflection of overall population (statements 16, 2, 36, 9, 20). Although it is the patterns of human uses that entrench decline, the most troubling concerns for reefs are global in scope and are the main drivers for the concerns about their survival (statements 13, 28), especially warming oceans and acidification (statements 23, 12, 15, 5); local stressors, although not as important (as would be expected from a Gaian viewpoint) are nevertheless relevant and inexcusable (statements 1, 4, 28, 17, 13, 35, 36). Issues of biodiversity or connectivity (both of which are more locally defined elements of these ecosystems) are not important in themselves (statements 14, 30), but only as a guide to enhance ecosystems resilience (statements 7, 18). In fact, there is some erasure of local variations so to retain a more categorical view (statements 10, 25, 24, 32). The human-environment feedback cycle for this factor starts with an overview of the whole environment that is driven by change in the human- environment feedback systems and the response to inevitable global environmental change (statements 20, 10). Human behavior has to adjust to conserve reefs and it is the failings of local human behaviors on reef systems that bear the greatest responsibility of reef decline. The image of the social world is not seen in terms of development disparities nor does it consider geopolitical and economic variables as having

95 distinctly attributable consequences, implying a simplified Gaian view that champions behavior oriented towards a goal of adaptation, regardless of the individual circumstances (statements 32, 16, 10, 2, 36). This factor expresses a clearly Malthusian viewpoint in that not only are the healthiest reefs located in areas far from human centers of population (statements 8, 19), but that inevitable increases in coastal population pressures, although not necessarily individually accountable (statement 2) demand stringent local regulatory structures to control overexploitation and long-term adaptability (statements 20, 22). Therefore, responsible and resolute action must be taken on a local level in the looming but unpreventable problems caused by global change in order to make a difference.

5.1.2 Factor 2: Science-Oriented Pessimists This factor can be generally described as pessimists who have a belief in the scientific discourses, but who also contain what seems like some cynicism towards the discourse itself.

Table 5.3: Science Survey Factor 2: Statement rankings and z-scores.

z- # Statement F2 scores

Ocean acidification attendant to current trends of climate change is the most urgent issue for 5 +5 2.297 the future of coral reef survival.

4 The aquarium and curio market is a significant problem for reef health. +4 1.047

Maintaining (or achieving) a high level of biodiversity is the best way to insure the long-term 30 +4 0.831 survival of reefs.

Reef fisheries in developed countries (like the US) are in better condition than those in 32 +3 0.777 developing countries.

The increasing volume of long-distance reef-fishing efforts places at risk the most pristine reef 19 +3 0.699 regions in the world.

Misuse and over-exploitation of the marine environment is inevitable as a consequence of the 22 sheer increase in the population density on coastlines, so reef conditions will continue to +3 0.672 decline unless drastic regulations are put in place.

Predictions about the decline of reef health that were made 20 years ago (more or less) have 33 +2 0.624 generally come true.

35 Invasive species are an important health risk for coral reef ecosystems. +2 0.600

8 The healthiest reefs are those isolated in remote areas of the ocean, or far from land. +2 0.567

7 High connectivity among reefs confers resilience to perturbations. +2 0.535

Large-scale poaching and illegal commercial fishing activities are extremely important 17 +1 0.521 problems facing reef survival.

It is not the volume of fishing activities themselves, but the fishing methods used on reefs that 11 +1 0.458 have shown to be more damaging to reef-health and sustainability.

96 Table 5.3 – continued z- # Statement F2 scores

Resource scarcity and reef degradation is a natural consequence of growing population 20 pressures, and thus it is important to investigate cultural patterns of exploitation and uses if +1 0.405 environmental stresses on reefs are to be successfully modified.

Coastal development has played the main role in accelerating the decline of reef health in 16 +1 0.401 both developed and developing nations.

Much of the reason for the large-scale decline of reef health seen in the Atlantic/Caribbean 3 +1 0.397 reefs is the limited diversity of flora and fauna as compared to Indo-Pacific reef ecosystems.

In most cases, it is the population density of the adjacent coastal community that poses the 2 0 0.395 greatest threat to the health of coral reefs.

9 Destructive tourism practices on reef areas are a major factor in coral reef health decline. 0 0.371

14 The healthiest reefs are most likely to be those with a very high level of connectivity. 0 0.289

The global stresses (e.g. bleaching, increased susceptibility to disease, warming oceans) 23 0 0.218 imposed on reefs are the main causes for their decline.

Oil spills and ocean dumping are among the top significant contributing factors to global reef- 34 0 0.056 health decline.

Tourism and attendant coastal development is good for reefs as it provides the local 25 community with a means of alternative capital growth and therefore alleviates exploitation 0 0.040 pressures on nearby reefs.

Without a better understanding of human patterns of use of coral reefs, science-based 24 -1 -0.008 conservation efforts will inevitably fail.

Localized physical destruction of reefs (e.g. boat groundings, anchor damage) are minor 15 -1 -0.063 issues when it comes to the health of reefs overall.

Achieving a high resilience on a reef is more important than its connectivity in terms of reef 18 -1 -0.186 health.

Destructive tourism practices can be partially excused based on their contribution to local and 13 -1 -0.207 regional economies.

The subsistence lifestyles of coastal people living in depressed economies pose the greatest 36 -1 -0.252 threat to reef health and resilience.

Given coastal subsistence communities have been fishing their reefs for decades, they 28 -2 -0.281 cannot be faulted for the decline in reef health reported today.

Medium and large-scale commercial overfishing adjacent to reef-rich areas (and MPAs) is the 1 -2 -0.340 most significant contributing factor to the decline in reef health.

The poor accuracy of fisheries models (recruitment/population) on which catch limits are 27 -2 -0.451 established can be faulted as the reason for over-exploitation of fisheries in reef systems.

Coastal development in reef-rich areas is a purely localized problem for adjacent reefs, and 10 -2 -0.540 does not affect regional reef health.

Many long-deforested regions have relatively flourishing reef systems (e.g. Barbados), 26 -3 -0.787 implying that deforestation is more of a short-term concern for the health of reef systems.

97 Table 5.3 – continued z- # Statement F2 scores

One of the problems in reef science overall is the limited amount of field observations and 29 -3 -0.956 monitoring to make decisive statements about actual reef condition.

Coral reefs as we have known them are showing signs of decline worldwide, however the 21 -3 -1.400 ecosystem is experiencing a shift, not an extinction.

The actual consequences of acidification are unclear, but are of minimal concern given that 12 -4 -2.217 ppCO2 has always fluctuated in oceans over geologic time.

Although coral reef ecosystems are changing and will continue to do so, it is highly doubtful 6 -4 -2.233 that these changes will necessarily drive these systems to extinction in the long-term future.

Increased CO2 in the oceans is compensated, at least in part, by other phenomena such as 31 increased phytoplankton blooms, and therefore has had thus far a negligible affect on coral -5 -2.274 reefs.

This group can best be described as ones who are oriented from a scientific perspective. For this

group, the most troubling aspect in dealing with reef health is that of the effects of increased levels of CO2 in oceans because of global climate change (statements 5, 31, 12), which is likely to drive these ecosystems to extinction (statements 21, 6). This explains why biodiversity is a priority and creates a tone of pessimistic urgency (statements 30, 35). With no uncertainty does the impending acidification of oceans, an indisputable result of increasing CO2 in the global environment, pose the greatest threat to the survival of corals and is already having severe and permanent consequences on reef systems. Location as a relevant characteristic is expressed by the suspicion that some of the decline in reefs may be a consequence of the relatively limited biodiversity of Atlantic reefs (statement 3), and which logically follows from how this factor views biodiversity as an important variable of reef survival (statement 30, 35). Controlled resource extraction of local uses through regulation and enforcement is important is an necessary part of the solution (statement 11, 22, 32). The distinction of place also implies geopolitical and this group acknowledges differences in socio-political sensibilities (statements 32, 10, 28). This factor embodies a more pessimistic outlook on the gravity of human uses of reefs in the current climate of global imbalance, and assigns the most responsibility to the local behaviors in the backdrop of inevitable population growth and coastal development, particularly in developing countries where enforcement structures are loose (statements 32, 22, 17, 11). Like factor 1, factor 2 is inclined to figure environmental problems as global, but unlike factor 1, problems that are directly the cause of human actions and that the global fluctuations are not part of a natural cycle of change in any way, but human-induced and local, and determined by actions that happen on local geographical arenas (statements 15, 13, 28, 10, 19, 17, 16, 23), possibly because these are the most obvious to observe from a scientifically-oriented external observer gaze this factor seems to embody. Humans act (and misbehave), the environment responds in a way that can be approached systematically. The science is clear, reliable and available (statements 12, 22, 27, 29, 24) , with some serious concern that these systems are heading to extinction (statements 21, 6). This group can generally be considered the strongest proponents of

98 localized action in the backdrop of a feedback system of global change that should be considered scientifically.

5.1.3 Factor 3: Locally-Oriented Positivists This factor defines itself by its tight focus on population as the main concern in the environment. This group can be described as the “most Malthusian,” in that it finds population is the problem, but at the same time does not reveal disdain for subsistence lifestyles or distinguish cultural difference as a relevant variable. Instead, this group directs its priorities on issues that involve standard behavioral change as based on requirements expressed in scientific results.

Table 5.4: Science Survey Factor 3: statement rankings and z-scores.

z- # Statements F3 scores

In most cases, it is the population density of the adjacent coastal community that poses the 2 +5 2.150 greatest threat to the health of coral reefs.

Coastal development has played the main role in accelerating the decline of reef health in 16 +4 2.012 both developed and developing nations.

Misuse and over-exploitation of the marine environment is inevitable as a consequence of 22 the sheer increase in the population density on coastlines, so reef conditions will continue to +4 1.602 decline unless drastic regulations are put in place.

Without a better understanding of human patterns of use of coral reefs, science-based 24 +3 1.374 conservation efforts will inevitably fail.

Resource scarcity and reef degradation is a natural consequence of growing population 20 pressures, and thus it is important to investigate cultural patterns of exploitation and uses if +3 1.257 environmental stresses on reefs are to be successfully modified.

7 High connectivity among reefs confers resilience to perturbations. +3 1.038

The increasing volume of long-distance reef-fishing efforts places at risk the most pristine 19 +2 0.720 reef regions in the world.

Coral reefs as we have known them are showing signs of decline worldwide, however the 21 +2 0.443 ecosystem is experiencing a shift, not an extinction.

4 The aquarium and curio market is a significant problem for reef health. +2 0.426

14 The healthiest reefs are most likely to be those with a very high level of connectivity. +2 0.414

8 The healthiest reefs are those isolated in remote areas of the ocean, or far from land. +1 0.392

9 Destructive tourism practices on reef areas are a major factor in coral reef health decline. +1 0.354

Although coral reef ecosystems are changing and will continue to do so, it is highly doubtful 6 +1 0.321 that these changes will necessarily drive these systems to extinction in the long-term future.

Medium and large-scale commercial overfishing adjacent to reef-rich areas (and MPAs) is 1 +1 0.274 the most significant contributing factor to the decline in reef health.

35 Invasive species are an important health risk for coral reef ecosystems. +1 0.193

99 Table 5.4 – continued z- # Statements F3 scores

Increased CO2 in the oceans is compensated, at least in part, by other phenomena such as 31 increased phytoplankton blooms, and therefore has had thus far a negligible affect on coral 0 0.125 reefs.

The actual consequences of acidification are unclear, but are of minimal concern given that 12 0 0.034 ppCO2 has always fluctuated in oceans over geologic time.

Large-scale poaching and illegal commercial fishing activities are extremely important 17 0 0.027 problems facing reef survival.

The subsistence lifestyles of coastal people living in depressed economies pose the greatest 36 0 -0.019 threat to reef health and resilience.

Maintaining (or achieving) a high level of biodiversity is the best way to insure the long-term 30 0 -0.060 survival of reefs.

The global stresses (e.g. bleaching, increased susceptibility to disease, warming oceans) 23 0 -0.159 imposed on reefs are the main causes for their decline.

Predictions about the decline of reef health that were made 20 years ago (more or less) 33 -1 -0.354 have generally come true.

Many long-deforested regions have relatively flourishing reef systems (e.g. Barbados), 26 -1 -0.367 implying that deforestation is more of a short-term concern for the health of reef systems.

Tourism and attendant coastal development is good for reefs as it provides the local 25 community with a means of alternative capital growth and therefore alleviates exploitation -1 -0.511 pressures on nearby reefs.

Oil spills and ocean dumping are among the top significant contributing factors to global 34 -1 -0.601 reef-health decline.

Localized physical destruction of reefs (e.g. boat groundings, anchor damage) are minor 15 -1 -0.624 issues when it comes to the health of reefs overall.

Destructive tourism practices can be partially excused based on their contribution to local 13 -2 -0.660 and regional economies.

Coastal development in reef-rich areas is a purely localized problem for adjacent reefs, and 10 -2 -0.761 does not affect regional reef health.

Achieving a high resilience on a reef is more important than its connectivity in terms of reef 18 -2 -0.841 health.

Reef fisheries in developed countries (like the US) are in better condition than those in 32 -2 -0.903 developing countries.

One of the problems in reef science overall is the limited amount of field observations and 29 -3 -0.905 monitoring to make decisive statements about actual reef condition.

It is not the volume of fishing activities themselves, but the fishing methods used on reefs 11 -3 -1.107 that have shown to be more damaging to reef-health and sustainability.

Much of the reason for the large-scale decline of reef health seen in the Atlantic/Caribbean 3 -3 -1.206 reefs is the limited diversity of flora and fauna as compared to Indo-Pacific reef ecosystems.

The poor accuracy of fisheries models (recruitment/population) on which catch limits are 27 -4 -1.230 established can be faulted as the reason for over-exploitation of fisheries in reef systems.

100 Table 5.4 – continued z- # Statements F3 scores

Given coastal subsistence communities have been fishing their reefs for decades, they 28 -4 -1.247 cannot be faulted for the decline in reef health reported today.

Ocean acidification attendant to current trends of climate change is the most urgent issue for 5 -5 -1.603 the future of coral reef survival.

! The strongest characteristic of this factor, and what clearly separates it from the others, is its unequivocal attribution of increasing human population as the causative agent of environmental declines seen both locally and globally (statement 2, 16, 22, 24, 20). Unresolved scientific debates (such as effects of climate change and acidification) are not a decisive factor in how we should decide about conservation efforts (statement 31, 12, 5) because sustainable behavior on a local level with a regional view is the ideal approach (statement 10, 15, 9, 1, 28). This group displays the most faith in scientific findings and assumptions, especially regarding locally-derived results, such as issues of reef connectivity and resilience and fisheries models and is well-aware of the global connections (statements 7, 14, 8, 35, 13, 29, 27). This group also does not think predictions about the state of coral reefs have come true (statement 33), and may be indicative of the similar rejection of the too “distant” and globally “standardized” conclusions about the importance and effects of CO2 and concerns over acidification (statements 5, 12) as a result of global climate change. Although this group believes in the science, it is suspicious of sweeping all-encompassing statements regarding the facts. For this group, those issues that involve global problems in general terms as causation for environmental imbalance are not a primary consideration in the calculus of reef conservation, implying a greater confidence in localized or case studies as validations of consequences of population (statements 22, 16, 19, 4, 15, 10), yet not finding much significance in differences of socio- economic development (statement 16, 32). Consequently this factor has a tendency to value local action and distribute accountability in terms of community action (statements 1, 24, 10, 25). This factor champions understanding local cultural and community patterns of reef use as an effective management effort in an effort to contend with inevitable pressures from population (statement 22).

5.1.4 Contention and Consensus Contention and consensus can be gauged by the difference between the factor’s scores. For example, in Table 5.5, the greatest difference between the factor scores, or the “Gap” of statement 8 is 1, which means that all factors agree highly on that issue; however, the rankings of the factors are +2, +2 and +1, which translates that scientists are generally in agreement that although remote reefs are healthier it is also not such an important issue because the factor scores are closer to neutral. Statement 22 also shows a very high level of consensus among factors. In this case, however, although consensus is also very high, with a gap of only 1, the factor rankings of +3, +3, and +4 suggest that the issue of implementing drastic

101 regulations to control reef misuse is urgent or “intense” and strongly felt issue and efforts in that direction would likely have a great number of supporters from the community. Statement 20 also shows a high level of agreement, and has a variable intensity, but all towards the positive side. Conversely, when it comes to agreeing on stresses (statement 23) and consequences (statement 21), factors show some significant disagreement. The most contentious issue and one strongly felt is that of the effects of climate change on coral reefs, specifically that of the increased levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, as seen in the factor rankings of statement 5.

Table 5.5: Science Survey Factors and Consensus. The following table shows the gap between the factor rankings. The larger the gap, the stronger the contention among the factors regarding that particular statement; the smaller the gap, the weaker the consensus among them. The actual values of the factors also imply the intensity or strength of contention or consensus with high values implying that the issue is charged or extremely important and low or “neutral” values (-1 to +1) implying an issue of minimal concern. # Statement F1 F2 F3 Gap

Ocean acidification attendant to current trends of climate change is the most urgent 5 +3 +5 -5 10 issue for the future of coral reef survival.

Coral reefs as we have known them are showing signs of decline worldwide, however 21 +4 -3 +2 7 the ecosystem is experiencing a shift, not an extinction.

Although coral reef ecosystems are changing and will continue to do so, it is highly 6 doubtful that these changes will necessarily drive these systems to extinction in the +3 -4 +1 7 long-term future.

In most cases, it is the population density of the adjacent coastal community that 2 -1 0 +5 6 poses the greatest threat to the health of coral reefs.

4 The aquarium and curio market is a significant problem for reef health. -2 +4 +2 6

The global stresses (e.g. bleaching, increased susceptibility to disease, warming 5 +5 0 0 5 oceans) imposed on reefs are the main causes for their decline.

Localized physical destruction of reefs (e.g. boat groundings, anchor damage) are 15 +4 -1 -1 5 minor issues when it comes to the health of reefs overall.

One of the problems in reef science overall is the limited amount of field observations 29 +2 -3 -3 5 and monitoring to make decisive statements about actual reef condition.

Reef fisheries in developed countries (like the US) are in better condition than those in 32 0 +3 -2 5 developing countries.

Maintaining (or achieving) a high level of biodiversity is the best way to insure the long- 30 -1 +4 0 5 term survival of reefs.

35 Invasive species are an important health risk for coral reef ecosystems. -3 +2 +1 5

Destructive tourism practices on reef areas are a major factor in coral reef health 9 -4 0 +1 5 decline.

Increased CO2 in the oceans is compensated, at least in part, by other phenomena 31 such as increased phytoplankton blooms, and therefore has had thus far a negligible -1 -5 0 4 affect on coral reefs.

102 Table 5.5 – continued # Statement F1 F2 F3 Gap

Oil spills and ocean dumping are among the top significant contributing factors to 34 -5 0 -1 4 global reef-health decline.

Many long-deforested regions have relatively flourishing reef systems (e.g. Barbados), 26 implying that deforestation is more of a short-term concern for the health of reef +1 -3 -1 4 systems.

Without a better understanding of human patterns of use of coral reefs, science-based 24 +1 -1 +3 4 conservation efforts will inevitably fail.

The poor accuracy of fisheries models (recruitment/population) on which catch limits 27 are established can be faulted as the reason for over-exploitation of fisheries in reef 0 -2 -4 4 systems.

Coastal development has played the main role in accelerating the decline of reef 16 0 +1 +4 4 health in both developed and developing nations.

It is not the volume of fishing activities themselves, but the fishing methods used on 11 -1 +1 -3 4 reefs that have shown to be more damaging to reef-health and sustainability.

Much of the reason for the large-scale decline of reef health seen in the Atlantic/ 3 Caribbean reefs is the limited diversity of flora and fauna as compared to Indo-Pacific -2 +1 -3 4 reef ecosystems.

Large-scale poaching and illegal commercial fishing activities are extremely important 17 -3 +1 0 4 problems facing reef survival.

The actual consequences of acidification are unclear, but are of minimal concern given 12 -4 -4 0 4 that ppCO2 has always fluctuated in oceans over geologic time.

Predictions about the decline of reef health that were made 20 years ago (more or 33 +2 +2 -1 3 less) have generally come true.

Achieving a high resilience on a reef is more important than its connectivity in terms of 18 +1 -1 -2 3 reef health.

Medium and large-scale commercial overfishing adjacent to reef-rich areas (and 1 -2 -2 +1 3 MPAs) is the most significant contributing factor to the decline in reef health.

Resource scarcity and reef degradation is a natural consequence of growing population pressures, and thus it is important to investigate cultural patterns of 20 +2 +1 +3 2 exploitation and uses if environmental stresses on reefs are to be successfully modified.

7 High connectivity among reefs confers resilience to perturbations. +1 +2 +3 2

The increasing volume of long-distance reef-fishing efforts places at risk the most 19 +1 +3 +2 2 pristine reef regions in the world.

14 The healthiest reefs are most likely to be those with a very high level of connectivity. 0 0 +2 2

Coastal development in reef-rich areas is a purely localized problem for adjacent reefs, 10 0 -2 -2 2 and does not affect regional reef health.

Given coastal subsistence communities have been fishing their reefs for decades, they 28 -2 -2 -4 2 cannot be faulted for the decline in reef health reported today.

Destructive tourism practices can be partially excused based on their contribution to 13 -3 -1 -2 2 local and regional economies.

103 Table 5.5 – continued # Statement F1 F2 F3 Gap

Misuse and over-exploitation of the marine environment is inevitable as a 22 consequence of the sheer increase in the population density on coastlines, so reef +3 +3 +4 1 conditions will continue to decline unless drastic regulations are put in place.

8 The healthiest reefs are those isolated in remote areas of the ocean, or far from land. +2 +2 +1 1

Tourism and attendant coastal development is good for reefs as it provides the local 25 community with a means of alternative capital growth and therefore alleviates 0 0 -1 1 exploitation pressures on nearby reefs.

The subsistence lifestyles of coastal people living in depressed economies pose the 36 -1 -1 0 1 greatest threat to reef health and resilience.

104 5.2 Results: Management Survey

For the second survey on management issues, four factors best isolated and characterized the foundations through which debates are filtered and preferenced. Table 4 shows factor rankings for Factors 1 (F1), Factor 2 (F2), Factor 3 (F3), and Factor 4 (F4) by order of statement number. Subsequent tables show each of the factors by order of their individual rankings as well as their associated z-scores. The tables below show the statement rankings for each factor and associated z-scores. The description of the factor and its interpretation is addressed in the discussion section. The total number of ignored responses for the managment survey were seven out of thirty-one respondents. For the remainder of the respondent population, eleven individuals loaded on factor 1; eight on factor 2; and three on factor 3; and two on factor 4. ! The first table below shows how the factors ranked the statements, in order of the statements. This table is useful as an overview of how all the factors compare by the manner in which they rank the particular statement.

Table 5.6: Management Survey Factor Rankings: factor rankings by statements. This table below provides an overview of how the particular factors ordered the statements by statement number. # Statement F1 F2 F3 F4

Because global factors causing a decline in reef health are impossible to regulate, local 1 or regional stressors of reef decline should be the focus for management and +2 +2 +3 -2 conservation efforts.

The lack of scientific certainty about what constitutes a “normal” or healthy reef is the 2 -2 -4 +4 -3 biggest problem in managing reefs.

There is no point in protecting an area using local measures if long distance effects are 3 -5 -3 +4 +3 equally important in driving the ecosystem along a declining trajectory.

Severely restricting or eliminating local artisanal and subsistence fishing efforts on coral 4 -3 -2 -2 -3 reefs is the key to reef health and resilience.

5 MPAs are overall highly effective in preserving reefs. +3 -1 -4 0

It is impossible to standardize the measure of what constitutes a healthy reef because 6 -1 -1 +5 +3 of all the local variations in environmental stressors and localized ecological responses.

Regardless of which management system is employed, conservation of reefs must 7 +1 +5 +2 +1 happen on local and regional geographic scales to achieve success.

Because all reefs share a core of common causes for their declines, reef conservation 8 -2 +3 -1 -3 must happen globally with a standardized set of regulations to be successful.

It is only through strong enforcement measures such as severe penalties and a visible, 9 -2 +2 -3 +5 active force, that reef areas can be protected and maintained.

Commercial fishing operations (medium to large scale) generally follow the regulations 10 on fishing methods and catch limits given the risk of fines, and therefore need little -3 -3 +1 -2 enforcement.

Banning or intensively restricting any kind of fishing near reefs is the most concrete path 11 0 0 -4 -4 to reef recovery.

105 Table 5.6 – continued # Statement F1 F2 F3 F4

For fishers in developing countries, fishing is not only a means of subsistence and 12 +4 +1 +1 -1 survival, but also a way of life and cultural tradition that should be preserved.

Although there is some degree of fluctuation, fisheries stocks assessments and models 13 -1 -2 -2 +1 are generally accurate.

Measurable changes on reefs usually occur unevenly over a relatively small geographic 14 area (square meters or kilometers). Because of this highly localized variability, a 0 +1 0 -2 regional standard of regulations must be applied to reef areas if we are to protect them.

15 MPAs should be chosen to exist in places where reefs are in the poorest health. 0 -4 -3 -2

16 Enforcement of use-regulations is the number one obstacle to effective MPAs. +1 -1 -3 +2

Enforcement of acceptable recreational and tourist activities on reefs is more important 17 +1 -2 -2 -2 than regulating artisanal fishing.

There are too few modern examples of functioning or “successful” customary 18 management practices to serve as a viable management strategy for reef conservation -2 -1 0 -1 in the future.

Government or NGO-established MPAs do a much better job of protecting reefs than 19 -4 0 -3 +3 customary or community management systems.

MPA establishment should rest on the regional connectivity of reefs, regardless of their 20 condition, as the primary variable if we are to establish an effective regional marine 0 +3 -2 -5 protected area network.

Management goals of reefs should be to return them as close as possible to the pristine 21 -1 +1 -5 +2 conditions of decades ago.

In developed countries (e.g the U.S., Australia), reef fishing is generally more of a 22 recreation or a sport rather than a survival and subsistence mechanism, and therefore +1 0 -1 +1 fishing regulations are more readily accepted and generally followed.

The condition of reefs has a direct relationship between its proximity to a developed 23 country; healthier reefs are seen around developed countries while the most unhealthy -1 -5 -2 0 and degraded reefs are typically proximal to developing countries.

Because of the difficulty in controlling and alleviating reef stressors (e.g. rising ocean 24 temps), goals for managing reefs should be to regain the resilience of reefs in their +4 +2 +2 -1 current environment of stressors.

Over-exploitation and habitat loss or fragmentation disrupt natural levels of reef self- 25 recruitment and connectivity, and so to halt the destruction of reefs requires a global or +1 +2 -1 0 regional management system.

Emphasizing purely ecological foundations in ecosystem restoration ignores the 26 +2 0 +3 0 reasons for what drove environmental factors to a degradative state to begin with.

An effective reef MPA means greater coral growth (fewer dead/dying coral) and higher 27 0 +3 -1 0 species diversity within its boundaries.

28 Conservation focus should be on nearshore or coastal reefs. +1 -1 0 -4

An MPA in reef regions can be rated successful only when fish and herbivore 29 0 +2 -1 -1 populations remain stable or increase.

106 Table 5.6 – continued # Statement F1 F2 F3 F4

Politicians are uneasy about introducing closed seasons or reducing limits of 30 commercial fishing efforts near reef regions because of the strong lobbies representing +2 +3 0 +3 these fishers.

The social networks and relationships between the people in a reef fishing region are far 31 more important than top-down regulations as a controlling factor in how well fishing +3 +1 0 0 regulations and limits are followed.

Because of the increasing volume of long-distance reef fishing and poaching, 32 -3 0 +1 +1 community management systems are ineffective management mechanisms.

Conservation efforts should focus on restoring or maintaining reef resilience rather than 33 +5 -2 +3 +4 focus on reef restoration.

The growing pains inherent in becoming a developed country ultimately includes a 34 reduced social valuation of local traditional customs and taboos regarding resource +3 0 0 -1 exploitation, which is what we see happening in many reef areas today.

Corruption in any political form is the main obstacle to effective reef MPA establishment 35 +1 -3 -1 +4 and regulation enforcement.

36 Fish farming should be supported as a reef conservation solution. -1 -3 +2 +2

Although customary management is not designed for conservation, it often results in 37 +2 0 +1 +2 long-term, self-regulating effective resource stewardship.

MPAs should be established in places where the reefs are in the most pristine 38 -4 +4 +1 +2 conditions, regardless of their proximity to users.

There can be no set standard of MPA regulations, instead they must be individually 39 +3 -1 +3 +1 assessed based on the use-regimes and cultural mores.

Allowing continued community-controlled subsistence use of reefs, regardless of 40 formalized management structures, would ease poaching and illegal practices and +2 -2 0 -3 strengthen community-enforcement.

Remote reef areas that are still pristine or relatively undisturbed should be the primary 41 -3 +4 +2 +1 conservation focus.

Describing a reef as healthy is contingent on the relative condition of that reef compared 42 -2 +1 +2 -1 to neighboring reefs.

MPAs should be established where reefs are most important for local and community 43 0 +1 +1 0 livelihoods.

5.2.1 Factor 1: Community-Centered Humanists This factor is distinguished by its sensitivity towards the inevitability of change and the needs of place-specific communities. This factor has an optimistic sense to it given its view on the abilities for adaptation and integration. No preference is given for a particular management system, but rather that management be completed in a way to satisfy conservation goals.

107 Table 5.7: Management Survey Factor 1: Factor rankings and associated z-scores.

F1 # Statement F1 z-scores

Conservation efforts should focus on restoring or maintaining reef resilience rather than 33 +5 1.925 focus on reef restoration.

Because of the difficulty in controlling and alleviating reef stressors (e.g. rising ocean temps), 24 goals for managing reefs should be to regain the resilience of reefs in their current +4 1.786 environment of stressors.

For fishers in developing countries, fishing is not only a means of subsistence and survival, 12 +4 1.442 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 31 more important than top-down regulations as a controlling factor in how well fishing +3 1.303 regulations and limits are followed.

There can be no set standard of MPA regulations, instead they must be individually assessed 39 +3 1.290 based on the use-regimes and cultural mores.

5 MPAs are overall highly effective in preserving reefs. +3 1.110

The growing pains inherent in becoming a developed country ultimately includes a reduced 34 social valuation of local traditional customs and taboos regarding resource exploitation, +3 1.062 which is what we see happening in many reef areas today.

Emphasizing purely ecological foundations in ecosystem restoration ignores the reasons for 26 +2 1.034 what drove environmental factors to a degradative state to begin with.

Allowing continued community-controlled subsistence use of reefs, regardless of formalized 40 management structures, would ease poaching and illegal practices and strengthen +2 0.916 community-enforcement.

Because global factors causing a decline in reef health are impossible to regulate, local or 1 regional stressors of reef decline should be the focus for management and conservation +2 0.883 efforts.

Politicians are uneasy about introducing closed seasons or reducing limits of commercial 30 +2 0.849 fishing efforts near reef regions because of the strong lobbies representing these fishers.

Although customary management is not designed for conservation, it often results in long- 37 +2 0.684 term, self-regulating effective resource stewardship.

In developed countries (e.g the U.S., Australia), reef fishing is generally more of a recreation 22 or a sport rather than a survival and subsistence mechanism, and therefore fishing +1 0.676 regulations are more readily accepted and generally followed.

Regardless of which management system is employed, conservation of reefs must happen 7 +1 0.638 on local and regional geographic scales to achieve success.

16 Enforcement of use-regulations is the number one obstacle to effective MPAs. +1 0.379

Over-exploitation and habitat loss or fragmentation disrupt natural levels of reef self- 25 recruitment and connectivity, and so to halt the destruction of reefs requires a global or +1 0.364 regional management system.

28 Conservation focus should be on nearshore or coastal reefs. +1 0.241

108 Table 5.7 – continued F1 # Statement F1 z-scores

Enforcement of acceptable recreational and tourist activities on reefs is more important than 17 +1 0.234 regulating artisanal fishing.

Corruption in any political form is the main obstacle to effective reef MPA establishment and 35 +1 0.199 regulation enforcement.

MPAs should be established where reefs are most important for local and community 43 0 0.082 livelihoods.

Banning or intensively restricting any kind of fishing near reefs is the most concrete path to 11 0 0.027 reef recovery.

MPA establishment should rest on the regional connectivity of reefs, regardless of their 20 condition, as the primary variable if we are to establish an effective regional marine protected 0 -0.127 area network.

Measurable changes on reefs usually occur unevenly over a relatively small geographic area 14 (square meters or kilometers). Because of this highly localized variability, a regional 0 -0.203 standard of regulations must be applied to reef areas if we are to protect them.

An MPA in reef regions can be rated successful only when fish and herbivore populations 29 0 -0.306 remain stable or increase.

15 MPAs should be chosen to exist in places where reefs are in the poorest health. 0 -0.308

An effective reef MPA means greater coral growth (fewer dead/dying coral) and higher 27 0 -0.317 species diversity within its boundaries.

Although there is some degree of fluctuation, fisheries stocks assessments and models are 13 -1 -0.378 generally accurate.

36 Fish farming should be supported as a reef conservation solution. -1 -0.382

It is impossible to standardize the measure of what constitutes a healthy reef because of all 6 -1 -0.418 the local variations in environmental stressors and localized ecological responses.

Management goals of reefs should be to return them as close as possible to the pristine 21 -1 -0.454 conditions of decades ago.

The condition of reefs has a direct relationship between its proximity to a developed country; 23 healthier reefs are seen around developed countries while the most unhealthy and degraded -1 -0.478 reefs are typically proximal to developing countries.

There are too few modern examples of functioning or “successful” customary management 18 -2 -0.610 practices to serve as a viable management strategy for reef conservation in the future.

It is only through strong enforcement measures such as severe penalties and a visible, 9 -2 -0.618 active force, that reef areas can be protected and maintained.

Because all reefs share a core of common causes for their declines, reef conservation must 8 -2 -0.719 happen globally with a standardized set of regulations to be successful.

Describing a reef as healthy is contingent on the relative condition of that reef compared to 42 -2 -0.777 neighboring reefs.

The lack of scientific certainty about what constitutes a “normal” or healthy reef is the biggest 2 -2 -1.172 problem in managing reefs.

109 Table 5.7 – continued F1 # Statement F1 z-scores

Remote reef areas that are still pristine or relatively undisturbed should be the primary 41 -3 -1.200 conservation focus.

Severely restricting or eliminating local artisanal and subsistence fishing efforts on coral 4 -3 -1.220 reefs is the key to reef health and resilience.

Commercial fishing operations (medium to large scale) generally follow the regulations on 10 -3 -1.299 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 32 -3 -1.350 management systems are ineffective management mechanisms.

Government or NGO-established MPAs do a much better job of protecting reefs than 19 -4 -1.365 customary or community management systems.

MPAs should be established in places where the reefs are in the most pristine conditions, 38 -4 -1.574 regardless of their proximity to users.

There is no point in protecting an area using local measures if long distance effects are 3 -5 -1.809 equally important in driving the ecosystem along a declining trajectory.

! The core attitude that is revealed by the rankings in this factor shows that achieving resilience of reefs in the current climate of degradation is of primary importance in the future of reef health (statements 33, 24). This factor also believes that top-down regulatory systems may not be as effective as locally-driven management efforts (statements 12, 31, 32, 19, 3), that local regulation can (and does) work (statements 5, 12, 3). For this group, specifics of place must be considered and are crucial to producing effective management systems (statements 39, 34, 41, 38) and environmental degradation as an consequence of development, which must be countered and adapted to given it is inevitability (statements 34, 39, 4, 10, 32). This inevitability seems to also underlie the focus on resilience as the primary goal achieved through community structures that consider the needs of the community. Enforcement seems a key issue for this group, although it should be accomplished through local structures.

5.2.2 Factor 2: Scientific Idealists This group has a tendency to lean on scientific discourse as its justification for action that sees conservation issues from a particularly academic point of view. Human needs in a particular community are not necessarily reasons for particular action, but are viewed as part of an equation that either can or cannot be accommodated. This group can be considered the realists with idealistic tendencies applying scientific paradigms to conservation of reefs.

110 Table 5.8: Management Survey Factor 2: Rankings and associated z-scores. z- # Statement F2 scores

Regardless of which management system is employed, conservation of reefs must happen 7 +5 2.166 on local and regional geographic scales to achieve success.

MPAs should be established in places where the reefs are in the most pristine conditions, 38 +4 1.902 regardless of their proximity to users.

Remote reef areas that are still pristine or relatively undisturbed should be the primary 41 +4 1.786 conservation focus.

An effective reef MPA means greater coral growth (fewer dead/dying coral) and higher 27 +3 1.557 species diversity within its boundaries.

MPA establishment should rest on the regional connectivity of reefs, regardless of their 20 condition, as the primary variable if we are to establish an effective regional marine protected +3 1.173 area network.

Because all reefs share a core of common causes for their declines, reef conservation must 8 +3 1.055 happen globally with a standardized set of regulations to be successful.

Politicians are uneasy about introducing closed seasons or reducing limits of commercial 30 +3 1.047 fishing efforts near reef regions because of the strong lobbies representing these fishers.

Over-exploitation and habitat loss or fragmentation disrupt natural levels of reef self- 25 recruitment and connectivity, and so to halt the destruction of reefs requires a global or +2 1.039 regional management system.

Because of the difficulty in controlling and alleviating reef stressors (e.g. rising ocean temps), 24 goals for managing reefs should be to regain the resilience of reefs in their current +2 0.818 environment of stressors.

An MPA in reef regions can be rated successful only when fish and herbivore populations 29 +2 0.636 remain stable or increase.

Because global factors causing a decline in reef health are impossible to regulate, local or 1 regional stressors of reef decline should be the focus for management and conservation +2 0.613 efforts.

It is only through strong enforcement measures such as severe penalties and a visible, 9 +2 0.604 active force, that reef areas can be protected and maintained.

Management goals of reefs should be to return them as close as possible to the pristine 21 +1 0.595 conditions of decades ago.

For fishers in developing countries, fishing is not only a means of subsistence and survival, 12 +1 0.277 but also a way of life and cultural tradition that should be preserved.

Measurable changes on reefs usually occur unevenly over a relatively small geographic area 14 (square meters or kilometers). Because of this highly localized variability, a regional +1 0.252 standard of regulations must be applied to reef areas if we are to protect them.

Describing a reef as healthy is contingent on the relative condition of that reef compared to 42 +1 0.051 neighboring reefs.

MPAs should be established where reefs are most important for local and community 43 +1 0.049 livelihoods.

111 Table 5.8 – continued z- # Statement F2 scores

The social networks and relationships between the people in a reef fishing region are far 31 more important than top-down regulations as a controlling factor in how well fishing +1 0.026 regulations and limits are followed.

The growing pains inherent in becoming a developed country ultimately includes a reduced 34 social valuation of local traditional customs and taboos regarding resource exploitation, 0 0.020 which is what we see happening in many reef areas today.

Because of the increasing volume of long-distance reef fishing and poaching, community 32 0 0.001 management systems are ineffective management mechanisms.

In developed countries (e.g the U.S., Australia), reef fishing is generally more of a recreation 22 or a sport rather than a survival and subsistence mechanism, and therefore fishing 0 -0.047 regulations are more readily accepted and generally followed.

Emphasizing purely ecological foundations in ecosystem restoration ignores the reasons for 26 0 -0.082 what drove environmental factors to a degradative state to begin with.

Although customary management is not designed for conservation, it often results in long- 37 0 -0.188 term, self-regulating effective resource stewardship.

Government or NGO-established MPAs do a much better job of protecting reefs than 19 0 -0.262 customary or community management systems.

Banning or intensively restricting any kind of fishing near reefs is the most concrete path to 11 0 -0.306 reef recovery.

16 Enforcement of use-regulations is the number one obstacle to effective MPAs. -1 -0.349

5 MPAs are overall highly effective in preserving reefs. -1 -0.356

28 Conservation focus should be on nearshore or coastal reefs. -1 -0.362

There are too few modern examples of functioning or “successful” customary management 18 -1 -0.514 practices to serve as a viable management strategy for reef conservation in the future.

It is impossible to standardize the measure of what constitutes a healthy reef because of all 6 -1 -0.516 the local variations in environmental stressors and localized ecological responses.

There can be no set standard of MPA regulations, instead they must be individually assessed 39 -1 -0.521 based on the use-regimes and cultural mores.

Although there is some degree of fluctuation, fisheries stocks assessments and models are 13 -2 -0.523 generally accurate.

Allowing continued community-controlled subsistence use of reefs, regardless of formalized 40 management structures, would ease poaching and illegal practices and strengthen -2 -0.682 community-enforcement.

Severely restricting or eliminating local artisanal and subsistence fishing efforts on coral 4 -2 -0.733 reefs is the key to reef health and resilience.

Enforcement of acceptable recreational and tourist activities on reefs is more important than 17 -2 -0.762 regulating artisanal fishing.

Conservation efforts should focus on restoring or maintaining reef resilience rather than 33 -2 -0.767 focus on reef restoration.

112 Table 5.8 – continued z- # Statement F2 scores

Corruption in any political form is the main obstacle to effective reef MPA establishment and 35 -3 -0.788 regulation enforcement.

Commercial fishing operations (medium to large scale) generally follow the regulations on 10 -3 -0.860 fishing methods and catch limits given the risk of fines, and therefore need little enforcement.

36 Fish farming should be supported as a reef conservation solution. -3 -0.889

There is no point in protecting an area using local measures if long distance effects are 3 -3 -1.220 equally important in driving the ecosystem along a declining trajectory.

15 MPAs should be chosen to exist in places where reefs are in the poorest health. -4 -1.360

The lack of scientific certainty about what constitutes a “normal” or healthy reef is the biggest 2 -4 -1.457 problem in managing reefs.

The condition of reefs has a direct relationship between its proximity to a developed country; 23 healthier reefs are seen around developed countries while the most unhealthy and degraded -5 -1.696 reefs are typically proximal to developing countries.

This factor attitude has a regional or local perspective as well (statement 7, 3), but only in terms of a supporting system for top-down regulatory devices (statements 8, 20, 15, 25, 39, 40). 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). This factor also believes that the greatest effort should be focused on pristine (and remote) reefs (statements 38, 41, 20, 15, 23) and shows disdain for the politicized and capitalist-oriented factors that are associated with reef conservation efforts (statements 30, 36, 10).

5.2.3. Factor 3: Skeptical Utilitarianists This group clearly shows serious skepticism towards scientific discourse that does not include the practical dimensions of ecosystem conservation. This factor values utilitarian and practical aspects of scientific information and sets its goals towards ideal circumstances as modeled by scientific discourses.

Table 5.9: Management Survey Factor 3: Rankings and associated z-scores.

F3 # Statement F3 z- scores

It is impossible to standardize the measure of what constitutes a healthy reef because of all 6 +5 1.658 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 2 +4 1.644 problem in managing reefs.

113 Table 5.9 – continued F3 # Statement F3 z- scores

There is no point in protecting an area using local measures if long distance effects are 3 +4 1.626 equally important in driving the ecosystem along a declining trajectory.

Emphasizing purely ecological foundations in ecosystem restoration ignores the reasons for 26 +3 1.514 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 1 regional stressors of reef decline should be the focus for management and conservation +3 1.299 efforts.

There can be no set standard of MPA regulations, instead they must be individually assessed 39 +3 1.218 based on the use-regimes and cultural mores.

Conservation efforts should focus on restoring or maintaining reef resilience rather than 33 +3 0.837 focus on reef restoration.

Regardless of which management system is employed, conservation of reefs must happen 7 +2 0.817 on local and regional geographic scales to achieve success.

36 Fish farming should be supported as a reef conservation solution. +2 0.702

Describing a reef as healthy is contingent on the relative condition of that reef compared to 42 +2 0.695 neighboring reefs.

Because of the difficulty in controlling and alleviating reef stressors (e.g. rising ocean temps), 24 goals for managing reefs should be to regain the resilience of reefs in their current +2 0.659 environment of stressors.

Remote reef areas that are still pristine or relatively undisturbed should be the primary 41 +2 0.625 conservation focus.

Because of the increasing volume of long-distance reef fishing and poaching, community 32 +1 0.557 management systems are ineffective management mechanisms.

Commercial fishing operations (medium to large scale) generally follow the regulations on 10 +1 0.405 fishing methods and catch limits given the risk of fines, and therefore need little enforcement.

MPAs should be established where reefs are most important for local and community 43 +1 0.319 livelihoods.

For fishers in developing countries, fishing is not only a means of subsistence and survival, 12 +1 0.317 but also a way of life and cultural tradition that should be preserved.

Although customary management is not designed for conservation, it often results in long- 37 +1 0.231 term, self-regulating effective resource stewardship.

MPAs should be established in places where the reefs are in the most pristine conditions, 38 +1 0.149 regardless of their proximity to users.

Measurable changes on reefs usually occur unevenly over a relatively small geographic area 14 (square meters or kilometers). Because of this highly localized variability, a regional 0 0.125 standard of regulations must be applied to reef areas if we are to protect them.

28 Conservation focus should be on nearshore or coastal reefs. 0 0.027

Politicians are uneasy about introducing closed seasons or reducing limits of commercial 30 0 -0.046 fishing efforts near reef regions because of the strong lobbies representing these fishers.

114 Table 5.9 – continued F3 # Statement F3 z- scores

The growing pains inherent in becoming a developed country ultimately includes a reduced 34 social valuation of local traditional customs and taboos regarding resource exploitation, 0 -0.054 which is what we see happening in many reef areas today.

Allowing continued community-controlled subsistence use of reefs, regardless of formalized 40 management structures, would ease poaching and illegal practices and strengthen 0 -0.082 community-enforcement.

The social networks and relationships between the people in a reef fishing region are far 31 more important than top-down regulations as a controlling factor in how well fishing 0 -0.195 regulations and limits are followed.

There are too few modern examples of functioning or “successful” customary management 18 0 -0.298 practices to serve as a viable management strategy for reef conservation in the future.

Corruption in any political form is the main obstacle to effective reef MPA establishment and 35 -1 -0.320 regulation enforcement.

Because all reefs share a core of common causes for their declines, reef conservation must 8 -1 -0.358 happen globally with a standardized set of regulations to be successful.

An effective reef MPA means greater coral growth (fewer dead/dying coral) and higher 27 -1 -0.364 species diversity within its boundaries.

In developed countries (e.g the U.S., Australia), reef fishing is generally more of a recreation 22 or a sport rather than a survival and subsistence mechanism, and therefore fishing -1 -0.367 regulations are more readily accepted and generally followed.

Over-exploitation and habitat loss or fragmentation disrupt natural levels of reef self- 25 recruitment and connectivity, and so to halt the destruction of reefs requires a global or -1 -0.399 regional management system.

An MPA in reef regions can be rated successful only when fish and herbivore populations 29 -1 -0.427 remain stable or increase.

The condition of reefs has a direct relationship between its proximity to a developed country; 23 healthier reefs are seen around developed countries while the most unhealthy and degraded -2 -0.486 reefs are typically proximal to developing countries.

Enforcement of acceptable recreational and tourist activities on reefs is more important than 17 -2 -0.488 regulating artisanal fishing.

MPA establishment should rest on the regional connectivity of reefs, regardless of their 20 condition, as the primary variable if we are to establish an effective regional marine protected -2 -0.657 area network.

Severely restricting or eliminating local artisanal and subsistence fishing efforts on coral 4 -2 -0.747 reefs is the key to reef health and resilience.

Although there is some degree of fluctuation, fisheries stocks assessments and models are 13 -2 -0.749 generally accurate.

16 Enforcement of use-regulations is the number one obstacle to effective MPAs. -3 -0.933

Government or NGO-established MPAs do a much better job of protecting reefs than 19 -3 -0.984 customary or community management systems.

115 Table 5.9 – continued F3 # Statement F3 z- scores

It is only through strong enforcement measures such as severe penalties and a visible, 9 -3 -1.065 active force, that reef areas can be protected and maintained.

15 MPAs should be chosen to exist in places where reefs are in the poorest health. -3 -1.096

Banning or intensively restricting any kind of fishing near reefs is the most concrete path to 11 -4 -1.520 reef recovery.

5 MPAs are overall highly effective in preserving reefs. -4 -2.130

Management goals of reefs should be to return them as close as possible to the pristine 21 -5 -2.249 conditions of decades ago.

This factor exemplifies the disenchantment that can often come with the difficulties in management of complex ecosystems, and demonstrates significant doubt in the general perspectives of scientific findings that factor 2 has significant faith in (statements 6, 2, 26, 39). 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), but feel 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 “conventional” ideologies of MPAs.

5.2.4 Factor 4: Political Reformists The strongest notion inherent in this factor is its belief in political reform, apparently more from the top down, as the most effective route to coral reef conservation. It is intensely aware of political corruption and questionable influences on policy and research directives, however believes strongly in formalized structures and larger consortiums as having the greatest potential to effect measurable change in the environment.

Table 5.10: Management Survey Factor 4: Rankings and associated z-scores.

F4 z- # Statement F4 scores

It is only through strong enforcement measures such as severe penalties and a visible, active 9 +5 1.666 force, that reef areas can be protected and maintained.

Corruption in any political form is the main obstacle to effective reef MPA establishment and 35 +4 1.666 regulation enforcement.

Conservation efforts should focus on restoring or maintaining reef resilience rather than focus 33 +4 1.402 on reef restoration.

116 Table 5.10 – continued F4 z- # Statement F4 scores

Government or NGO-established MPAs do a much better job of protecting reefs than 19 +3 1.282 customary or community management systems.

Politicians are uneasy about introducing closed seasons or reducing limits of commercial 30 +3 0.943 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 6 +3 0.865 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 3 +3 0.850 equally important in driving the ecosystem along a declining trajectory.

Although customary management is not designed for conservation, it often results in long- 37 +2 0.768 term, self-regulating effective resource stewardship.

16 Enforcement of use-regulations is the number one obstacle to effective MPAs. +2 0.755

36 Fish farming should be supported as a reef conservation solution. +2 0.734

Management goals of reefs should be to return them as close as possible to the pristine 21 +2 0.692 conditions of decades ago.

MPAs should be established in places where the reefs are in the most pristine conditions, 38 +2 0.555 regardless of their proximity to users.

In developed countries (e.g the U.S., Australia), reef fishing is generally more of a recreation 22 or a sport rather than a survival and subsistence mechanism, and therefore fishing regulations +1 0.547 are more readily accepted and generally followed.

Although there is some degree of fluctuation, fisheries stocks assessments and models are 13 +1 0.522 generally accurate.

Because of the increasing volume of long-distance reef fishing and poaching, community 32 +1 0.447 management systems are ineffective management mechanisms.

Regardless of which management system is employed, conservation of reefs must happen on 7 +1 0.427 local and regional geographic scales to achieve success.

Remote reef areas that are still pristine or relatively undisturbed should be the primary 41 +1 0.400 conservation focus.

There can be no set standard of MPA regulations, instead they must be individually assessed 39 +1 0.387 based on the use-regimes and cultural mores.

5 MPAs are overall highly effective in preserving reefs. 0 0.267

Over-exploitation and habitat loss or fragmentation disrupt natural levels of reef self- 25 recruitment and connectivity, and so to halt the destruction of reefs requires a global or 0 0.226 regional management system.

Emphasizing purely ecological foundations in ecosystem restoration ignores the reasons for 26 0 0.207 what drove environmental factors to a degradative state to begin with.

The condition of reefs has a direct relationship between its proximity to a developed country; 23 healthier reefs are seen around developed countries while the most unhealthy and degraded 0 0.095 reefs are typically proximal to developing countries.

MPAs should be established where reefs are most important for local and community 43 0 0.086 livelihoods.

117 Table 5.10 – continued F4 z- # Statement F4 scores

An effective reef MPA means greater coral growth (fewer dead/dying coral) and higher 27 0 0.080 species diversity within its boundaries.

The social networks and relationships between the people in a reef fishing region are far more 31 important than top-down regulations as a controlling factor in how well fishing regulations and 0 0.003 limits are followed.

There are too few modern examples of functioning or “successful” customary management 18 -1 -0.158 practices to serve as a viable management strategy for reef conservation in the future.

The growing pains inherent in becoming a developed country ultimately includes a reduced 34 social valuation of local traditional customs and taboos regarding resource exploitation, which -1 -0.301 is what we see happening in many reef areas today.

Because of the difficulty in controlling and alleviating reef stressors (e.g. rising ocean temps), 24 goals for managing reefs should be to regain the resilience of reefs in their current -1 -0.303 environment of stressors.

An MPA in reef regions can be rated successful only when fish and herbivore populations 29 -1 -0.514 remain stable or increase.

Describing a reef as healthy is contingent on the relative condition of that reef compared to 42 -1 -0.550 neighboring reefs.

For fishers in developing countries, fishing is not only a means of subsistence and survival, 12 -1 -0.624 but also a way of life and cultural tradition that should be preserved.

Commercial fishing operations (medium to large scale) generally follow the regulations on 10 -2 -0.634 fishing methods and catch limits given the risk of fines, and therefore need little enforcement.

Measurable changes on reefs usually occur unevenly over a relatively small geographic area 14 (square meters or kilometers). Because of this highly localized variability, a regional standard -2 -0.669 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 17 -2 -0.728 regulating artisanal fishing.

15 MPAs should be chosen to exist in places where reefs are in the poorest health. -2 -0.763

Because global factors causing a decline in reef health are impossible to regulate, local or 1 regional stressors of reef decline should be the focus for management and conservation -2 -0.916 efforts.

Allowing continued community-controlled subsistence use of reefs, regardless of formalized 40 management structures, would ease poaching and illegal practices and strengthen -3 -0.934 community-enforcement.

Because all reefs share a core of common causes for their declines, reef conservation must 8 -3 -1.146 happen globally with a standardized set of regulations to be successful.

Severely restricting or eliminating local artisanal and subsistence fishing efforts on coral reefs 4 -3 -1.209 is the key to reef health and resilience.

The lack of scientific certainty about what constitutes a “normal” or healthy reef is the biggest 2 -3 -1.274 problem in managing reefs.

Banning or intensively restricting any kind of fishing near reefs is the most concrete path to 11 -4 -1.485 reef recovery.

28 Conservation focus should be on nearshore or coastal reefs. -4 -1.615

118 Table 5.10 – continued F4 z- # Statement F4 scores

MPA establishment should rest on the regional connectivity of reefs, regardless of their 20 condition, as the primary variable if we are to establish an effective regional marine protected -5 -2.046 area network.

! This factor exemplifies a belief in the political environments and structures that have been installed in reef conservation science but do seem to favor structured and political mechanisms as dominant forces of change (statements 35, 19, 30), with a strong perception of enforcement as the primary determinant in chances for reef conservation (statements 9, 19, 10, 16). This factor implies a positivist position in that locally-oriented efforts do not have any concrete decision-making power in the scheme of MPA development and regulation and that community management is generally ineffective, rather approaching management as local enforcement mechanisms of enforcement rooted in global standards and ideologies (statements 40, 19, 8, 3, 1, 14). 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).

5.2.5 Contention and Consensus Contention and consensus can be gauged by the difference between the lowest and highest factor scores. The highest gap between the factor scores implies a very high level of disagreement among factors and vice versa. Contention is clearly prevalent regarding the issue in statement 3, in which the relationship between local and long-distance conservation measures is engaged, Factor 1 chose this as least agreeable (score = -5), while Factor 3 strongly agreed, giving it a score of +4. The difference between these equals 9, which is the gap-value. The other two factor scores, +3 and -3 also provide some insight as to the position of the entire community regarding this issue, showing that in this case with statement 3, the community is essentially split in half about this question.

Table 5.11: Management Survey Factors and Consensus. The following table shows the gap between the factor rankings. The larger the gap, the stronger the contention among the factors regarding that particular statement; the smaller the gap, the weaker the consensus among them. The actual values of the factors also imply the intensity or strength of contention or consensus with high values implying that the issue is charged or extremely important and low or “neutral” values (-1 to +1) implying an issue of minimal concern.

# Statement F1 F2 F3 F4 Gap

There is no point in protecting an area using local measures if long distance 3 -5 -3 +4 +3 9 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 2 -2 -4 +4 -3 8 the biggest problem in managing reefs.

It is only through strong enforcement measures such as severe penalties and a 9 -2 +2 -3 +5 8 visible, active force, that reef areas can be protected and maintained.

119 Table 5.11 – continued # Statement F1 F2 F3 F4 Gap

MPA establishment should rest on the regional connectivity of reefs, regardless of 20 their condition, as the primary variable if we are to establish an effective regional 0 +3 -2 -5 8 marine protected area network.

MPAs should be established in places where the reefs are in the most pristine 38 -4 +4 +1 +2 8 conditions, regardless of their proximity to users.

5 MPAs are overall highly effective in preserving reefs. +3 -1 -4 0 7

Government or NGO-established MPAs do a much better job of protecting reefs 19 -4 0 -3 +3 7 than customary or community management systems.

Management goals of reefs should be to return them as close as possible to the 21 -1 +1 -5 +2 7 pristine conditions of decades ago.

Conservation efforts should focus on restoring or maintaining reef resilience rather 33 +5 -2 +3 +4 7 than focus on reef restoration.

Corruption in any political form is the main obstacle to effective reef MPA 35 +1 -3 -1 +4 7 establishment and regulation enforcement.

Remote reef areas that are still pristine or relatively undisturbed should be the 41 -3 +4 +2 +1 7 primary conservation focus.

It is impossible to standardize the measure of what constitutes a healthy reef 6 because of all the local variations in environmental stressors and localized -1 -1 +5 +3 6 ecological responses.

Because all reefs share a core of common causes for their declines, reef 8 conservation must happen globally with a standardized set of regulations to be -2 +3 -1 -3 6 successful.

Because global factors causing a decline in reef health are impossible to regulate, 1 local or regional stressors of reef decline should be the focus for management and +2 +2 +3 -2 5 conservation efforts.

For fishers in developing countries, fishing is not only a means of subsistence and 12 +4 +1 +1 -1 5 survival, but also a way of life and cultural tradition that should be preserved.

16 Enforcement of use-regulations is the number one obstacle to effective MPAs. +1 -1 -3 +2 5

The condition of reefs has a direct relationship between its proximity to a 23 developed country; healthier reefs are seen around developed countries while the -1 -5 -2 0 5 most unhealthy and degraded reefs are typically proximal to developing countries.

Because of the difficulty in controlling and alleviating reef stressors (e.g. rising 24 ocean temps), goals for managing reefs should be to regain the resilience of reefs +4 +2 +2 -1 5 in their current environment of stressors.

28 Conservation focus should be on nearshore or coastal reefs. +1 -1 0 -4 5

36 Fish farming should be supported as a reef conservation solution. -1 -3 +2 +2 5

Allowing continued community-controlled subsistence use of reefs, regardless of 40 formalized management structures, would ease poaching and illegal practices and +2 -2 0 -3 5 strengthen community-enforcement.

Regardless of which management system is employed, conservation of reefs must 7 +1 +5 +2 +1 4 happen on local and regional geographic scales to achieve success.

120 Table 5.11 – continued # Statement F1 F2 F3 F4 Gap

Commercial fishing operations (medium to large scale) generally follow the 10 regulations on fishing methods and catch limits given the risk of fines, and -3 -3 +1 -2 4 therefore need little enforcement.

Banning or intensively restricting any kind of fishing near reefs is the most 11 0 0 -4 -4 4 concrete path to reef recovery.

15 MPAs should be chosen to exist in places where reefs are in the poorest health. 0 -4 -3 -2 4

An effective reef MPA means greater coral growth (fewer dead/dying coral) and 27 0 +3 -1 0 4 higher species diversity within its boundaries.

Because of the increasing volume of long-distance reef fishing and poaching, 32 -3 0 +1 +1 4 community management systems are ineffective management mechanisms.

The growing pains inherent in becoming a developed country ultimately includes a 34 reduced social valuation of local traditional customs and taboos regarding +3 0 0 -1 4 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 39 +3 -1 +3 +1 4 individually assessed based on the use-regimes and cultural mores.

Describing a reef as healthy is contingent on the relative condition of that reef 42 -2 +1 +2 -1 4 compared to neighboring reefs.

Although there is some degree of fluctuation, fisheries stocks assessments and 13 -1 -2 -2 +1 3 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 14 0 +1 0 -2 3 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 17 +1 -2 -2 -2 3 important than regulating artisanal fishing.

Over-exploitation and habitat loss or fragmentation disrupt natural levels of reef 25 self-recruitment and connectivity, and so to halt the destruction of reefs requires a +1 +2 -1 0 3 global or regional management system.

Emphasizing purely ecological foundations in ecosystem restoration ignores the 26 +2 0 +3 0 3 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 29 0 +2 -1 -1 3 populations remain stable or increase.

Politicians are uneasy about introducing closed seasons or reducing limits of 30 commercial fishing efforts near reef regions because of the strong lobbies +2 +3 0 +3 3 representing these fishers.

The social networks and relationships between the people in a reef fishing region 31 are far more important than top-down regulations as a controlling factor in how +3 +1 0 0 3 well fishing regulations and limits are followed.

There are too few modern examples of functioning or “successful” customary 18 management practices to serve as a viable management strategy for reef -2 -1 0 -1 2 conservation in the future.

In developed countries (e.g the U.S., Australia), reef fishing is generally more of a 22 recreation or a sport rather than a survival and subsistence mechanism, and +1 0 -1 +1 2 therefore fishing regulations are more readily accepted and generally followed.

121 Table 5.11 – continued # Statement F1 F2 F3 F4 Gap

Although customary management is not designed for conservation, it often results 37 +2 0 +1 +2 2 in long-term, self-regulating effective resource stewardship.

Severely restricting or eliminating local artisanal and subsistence fishing efforts on 4 -3 -2 -2 -3 1 coral reefs is the key to reef health and resilience.

MPAs should be established where reefs are most important for local and 43 0 +1 +1 0 1 community livelihoods.

122 5.3 Discussion: Attitudes, Viewpoints and Perceptions

From the results in Sections 5.1-5.2, a comprehensive overview of subjectivities within scientific and management issues can be discerned in a systematic way. It should be noted that the more familiar the researcher is with the topic, the better the likelihood for quality statements that can indeed provide significant insight into the state of particular scientific understandings about the environment and potentially generate an environment that can accommodate a way forward in conservation efforts. Additionally, familiarity with the subject-matter and the epistemic community also allows for more insight as to subtextual implications, which can be interpreted as shaping a large part of the discourse. As described in detail, the manner in which the same statements were ordered by different individuals, who all share a vested interest in the subject, allows for interpretation of the statement ordering into particular characteristics that represent a “common individual” type, represented by the factors. These characteristics emerge as distinctive attitudes, beliefs or perspectives about the issue that dominate in the community of respondents and are reflected in the contrasting arrangements of statements. A table of the results summarizes the factor results by the perspectives through which the epistemic community views and expresses knowledges about scientific and management issues. These perspectives provide an overview of the moral frames that influence how particular environmental knowledge is internalized, which determines preferences and directions of research. To generate these tables, the common issues around which the variety of viewpoints were focused was discerned, for example, how human-environment relationships should be viewed in the context of space (such as global perspectives versus local perspectives). Such perceptions influence the ways in which knowledge and actions are judged, communicated, and internalized, and are therefore relevant distinctions in attitudes. Following the tables that show the basic attitudes of factors, is a chart showing the general levels of consensus and contention plotted agains the importance or priority on how that issues is perceived. From this chart, it becomes possible to draw conclusions about which issues will receive resistance and which will generally be less difficult to find agreement about, and potentially act on. Charting the consensus and priority levels provides an overview of the relationship between the issues in terms of priority and levels of agreement.

5.3.1 Science Issues Three factors were isolated in the scientific issues survey. In general, all factors were defined by differences in how they viewed the following: 1) geographic orientation and the conceptual structure of the human-environment feedback systems in reef regions; 2) the ecological condition of these systems and influences of stressors; 3) the dominant threats and approach of solutions;

123 4) although all factors displayed a Malthusian viewpoint, each had a particular way of organizing the problem of population in the larger scheme of ecosystem health, concerns, and mitigation.

Table 5.12 consolidates the results based on these four variables that were common to all factors, and frames the basic attitudes that are prevalent in the community of respondents regarding the scientific issues Q-sort.

Table 5.12: Summary: Science Survey Factor Attributes: This table consolidates the factor-results describing attitudes and perspectives. 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. The factors among scientific issues were distinguishable based on the factors’ general attitudes, their perception of ecological conditions of reef systems, their geographic perspective in terms of spatial orientation with the human-environment feedback system, the dominant threats to reef health and conservation, and what sort of perceptions each has on the Malthusian attitude that all have in common.

F2: Science-oriented F1: Gaian Communalists F3: Locally-oriented Positivists Pessimists

Geographic • “Global” and “holistic” vision of • Objective and academically- • Highly critical of local abuses of Perspectives the environment as part of a situated view of the human- reefs, although sees it as a larger system but made up of environment feedback system. problem of human population smaller parts that are known densities. through locally-relevant and • Society should respond in scientifically-based information. accordance to the available • Global changes manifest in scientific knowledge. local/regional scales. • Local issues are important, but only as far as being an • Geographic sensibilities of • Reliable observations of reef explanatory part of a whole. difference between environments happen on local development status of and regional scales. countries. • Little importance given to political and economic difference.

Ecological • The ecosystem is experiencing • Isolated reefs are in the best • Connectivity between reef Condition a shift, not an extinction. condition and biodiversity is of systems should be sought utmost importance. rather than focusing on • The system can be handled as concerns over biodiversity and one that is adaptive and • Consequences of increased resilience. mutable. CO2 and ocean warming are urgent and of the primary • Local problems are most • Reefs are locally distinct yet concern of long term future. important such as curio and only insofar as representing aquarium trade, overfishing, part of a global ecological • Coral ecosystems are destructive tourism practices, network of reefs and therefore experiencing an extinction deforestation, invasive species, little emphasis is placed on event. anchor damage, etc.). local stressors but rather how these all respond as a whole. • The current situation shows no • Isolated reefs are in far better clear signs of recovery nor do condition than those near land • Connectivity and resilience are scientific results indicate any and population centers. interrelated, but resilience is optimism about the future, most important to achieve as an which reinforces faith in adaptive mechanism. scientific research as an authoritative source and therefore reliant on outcomes and interpretations.

124 Table 5.12 – continued F2: Science-oriented F1: Gaian Communalists F3: Locally-oriented Positivists Pessimists

Dominant • Concern about global stressors • Ocean acidification and • Human population increases. Threats together are most important increasing levels of CO2 are the and biggest concern, including most immediate threats; and • Coastal development. warming oceans but also local stressors such as curio disease. trade, invasive species, local • Expansion of commercialized physical damage manifest how resource extraction (e.g. • These stressors are a result of the global threats will emerge in fisheries). the human community that are each environment. inevitable as populations • Localized destructive practices increase. • Human abuses and such as deforestation, unsustainable extraction inappropriate tourism, excessive local resource extraction, etc.)

Viewpoint on • The density of people in coastal • People misbehave and • Sees rising population as the Population regions, but also in general, is a unsustainably exploit and most urgent issue to be dealt variable and has inevitabilities abuse reef environments. with on a all scales, although that must be dealt with. not blaming subsistence or • The problems in reef-rich areas local use-regimes as the main • Humans are a part of a whole have to be resolved through part of the problem. system, and should simply do stronger enforcement and what it takes to rescue the oversight. • Important that the coastal environment regardless of what communitiesʼ cultural patterns individual circumstances may • It is not community populations of reef use and exploitation are be. near the reef site that can be understood if conservation is to faulted for its condition, but the be effective. • Not too concerned about external population and individual needs, but rather resource extraction pressures • Treats population as the individual responsibilities as a caused by the inevitability of dependent variable from which whole community. greater numbers. destructive environmental causation is established.

Overall • Holistic, “all in it together”, • Distant and separated view; • Strong faith in scientific Attitude community as responsible part pessimistic and somewhat discourses of reef decline. of a global system. cynical about the future and human potential for positive • Emphasis on local • “Think global act local” change. (geographically). Local factors tendency; strong faith in power and local observations as a of community. • Emphasis on global problems, template for action rather than especially global CO2 flux and focusing on global concerns. ocean acidification.

5.3.2 Management Issues Four factors were distinctly isolated from the analysis regarding management issues and discourse. All of the factors displayed very distinct differences three main categories: 1) the management model that should be applied, and what the problems are in management at present. 2) the geographic scale of the analytical perspective, i.e. local and regional versus global perspectives that dominate how problems are viewed and approached and; 3) the role of science in environmental management and conservation Table 5.13 provides a summary of the attitudes projected by each factor.

125 Table 5.13: Summary: Management Survey Factor Attributes: 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- F3: Skeptic F4: Political F2: Scientific Idealists centered Humanists Utilitarianists Reformists

Management • Locally based: • Local or community • Effective measures • Top-down systems are Model supports “bottom-up” management as a must be individually the concrete path to system of operative tool: assessed in terms of effective conservation. management that is supports local and the whole and which community driven and community includes human • Corruption and community enforced. management insofar factors which political coercions are as it is required to contribute a functional a main obstacles to provide the necessary mechanism. • Suspicious of successful commercial infrastructure to applications of reef support a globally- motivations and • Control the whole conservation efforts. capitalist based strategy of through the sum of its development conservation. parts. supports Strict enforcement of strategies destroying bottom-up • regulations as the effective community • Pristine areas should management but only primary requisite for governance. be the focus of as it can be applied successful reef conservation within an accepted management regardless of human standard of global proximities or local affiliation. use-regimes.

Geographic • Locally centered • Birdʼs eye view of the • Gaian in its manner of • Viewed as a Perspective viewpoint in that the world; a system that separating the local collection of socio- community is an is viewed as a whole. perspectives of reef political units that autonomous unit. “Global vision” ideal decline and must engage and as a collection of management but with connect through regions made of local an acknowledgment political means to • The spaces beyond the community systems, which all that these fall short of achieve conservation. respond to local represent functional representing the Local matters but successes, but units to support global whole. Local in mostly in terms of the successful efforts of reef action, global in realities that must be management of conservation. scope. included as part of the home-space is of political calculus to primary importance. reach conservation goals in the political network.

126 Table 5.13 – continued F1: Community- F3: Skeptic F4: Political F2: Scientific Idealists centered Humanists Utilitarianists Reformists

Role of Scientific • Useful information to • High degree of • Extremely skeptical • Directive that provides Contributions apply to improve the absolute agreement about the certainty of clarity and options community with purely scientific scientific claims; about management environment. claims regarding the mistrust in general choices. Science is a reef ecosystem that claims about non-humanized report can be generally predictions of reef that provides advice. • Reef resilience as the goal. applied as a starting health or achieving a point in policy and standardization. • Complete confidence regulation in the science; seen Acceptance of global • development. Confidence in the as a tool to apply but factors that • power of local that doesnʼt carry exacerbate local Sees human fallibility conditions as they political weight. declines, but stronger • as the problem in relate to confidence in socially achieving predicted generalizations and contextualized Strong faith in the results. pessimistic about • interpretations of the processes of society as a whole. problem of reef international relations decline and solutions. and environmental conventions

5.4 Discussion: Consensus and Priorities

The graphs below summarize Tables 5.5 and 5.11, which rank how the epistemic community agrees or disagrees about the issues expressed in the concourse through the Gap values explained in the introduction to Chapter 5, and in Section 5.1.4. This type of analysis and its visualization in the graphs below can provide some significant insight into how to direct the steps towards some goal that traditionally involves negotiation and agreement by removing the ambiguity of many valid opinions by weighting them in relative terms, providing a systematic means of prioritization. The tables in section 5.4.1 and 5.4.2, therefore, provide a general and comprehensive overview of where the issues stand relative to others in terms of priority displayed among the factors and their levels of agreement as generated by the gap-values. In general, these charts can be viewed as four sectors, high or low priority and little or no consensus versus near-complete consensus. The issues plotted in the table were positioned based on not only their gap values, but overall factor scores were also considered. For example, from table 5.5, the gap value for statement 2 and 4 are both 6, however these display distinctly different characteristics. Factor scores in statement 2 are -1, 0 and+5, and in terms of intensity or importance, overall seems like there are strong feelings about this issue. Statement 4 was scored at -2,+4,+2, also a gap of 6, however, more seem to agree with this overall and it the issue appears less “split” as in statement 6.

5.4.1. Science Issues From the general overview of the consensus of the following table (Table 5.14), there seems to be overall more agreement than disagreement about the issues discussed in the concourse, evidenced by more issues weighing towards the right of the table; however, at the same time, it seems that urgency or importance of the issues is overall fairly intense, as most are clustered in the top portion of the table as

127 well. Given one would rate agreeable factor gap-values as all values below 5, then two-thirds of the statements can be considered to be agreed upon, which implies high agreement about most of the issue when details are extracted. Not surprisingly, the issues that showed the highest degree of contention were those considered at present “hot button” issues, which are the effects of climate change on oceans and on coral reefs, and the constant question regarding how to handle population and development. These are large questions and so it is also not surprising that it is these issues that introduce tension.

Table 5.14: Priority and Consensus of Scientific Issues: This table consolidates the information in Table 5.5 and shows an overview of issues of consensus and contention relative to their priority levels. Issues towards the top right are those where there is a high level of consensus and strong priorities and are points that would likely receive little resistance. Problematic issues are those found in the top left quadrant in that they are of utmost priority, but do not show a high degree of agreement among the community.

Influencesencess and HIGH • Drasticsticc regregulationre lationstions mustst be put in importancertancece of iincreasingincrea • PRIORITY placece to mimitigateigateate reefre declineeclines in CO2 and oceann the facece of humahumanman populatioulation acidificatioificationn anandd increases.creases.ses. warmingrming

EcosystEcosystemsystem iss • Effectsctss ofo expeexperienciriencing a • fishinging shift and nnot an activities.vities.ies. extinextinctionction

issuesssues of • CCulturaulturaltural ppatternsrns ofo reef resilience,resilie , • usese are impimportantrtant biodiveiodiversityty and vavariableriablesables to know. connectivityconne vity

• Relativelativetiveve concontributionco butions andd importanimportimpmportancece of • AmoAmouAmount off blamelame attributattribttributed to Importance localcal vs globglobalgl cocoastcoastal populatpulatioulation densitdenensities in destructstructiveructivective forcesf rces on rereef ddeclines.es.s. reefsfs

• PrePredictionsionss aboabouta ut reereef conditionditionsitions have nott beenbee rearealized in theth envienvironmentment.

• Volumeolume and rarate of scientificfic obseobservationstionsns sufficiefficientt from whichich to drawraw conclusico clusionss abouaboutout reefef systems.systems.

• HealHealthealthiest reefs are LOW in remoremote areasreas of PRIORITY thee ooceocean.

LOW HIGH

AgreeAgreementment / Consenonsensusensussus

128 5.4.2 Management Issues This consensus table reveals that there is significantly less agreement about the issues relative to what was seen in the scientific survey. Gap-values of 5 or more were calculated for 21 out of 43 statements. This trend is evident in the scatter of statements in the table below. This table, like table 5.14, depicts consensus and priority. The most important issues for this population seems that they mostly agree that local community measures and considering local populations when developing MPAs are crucial.

Table 5.15: Priority and Consensus of Management Issues: This table is based on Table 5.11 and provides an overview of the issues that generate debate (or are contentious) and issues that are agreed upon as seen by the network that is engaged in these debates and directs conservation action. Given that validation of management action is measured by the scientific claims that support it, understanding how the community views dominant discourses about reef ecosystems becomes the foundation of management action.

HIGH • The influence of PRIORITY global feedback • Delegation of systems on the powerr and success of reef enforcemercement management.

• Localocal communityity measuresme are of greatreat importancece in establishing succesuccessful MPAsAs andan need support too work effectively.vely.

• Scientifictific uncertaintyrtainty about reef healthealth and locationsions oof MPA establishmelishment

• Severely Locationtion oof MPAsAs relativerela to reef restricting Importance • conditionition aand proximitximity of reefs to fishing will not populationlation centersrs lead to better conservation

• Faith in the ability of thee communitymmunity to successfullyssfully regulatete its reef resourcesrces

Commuommunity The relative importamportance • • manamanagement and the relationshipnship systems have between issuess of shown success connectivity andd resilienceresi andnd cacan be in MPA establishmenshment. effectiffective.

• MPAs should be established LOW in areas of PRIORITY human uses

LOW HIGH

Agreemereement / Consensusensuss

129 6. CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions from this work touch on several different topics, however all of which confirm the potential to bridge the fissure between natural science and social science. This work also has shown that it is possible to negotiate the gap between the deductive and inductive scientific philosophies by clarifying the perceptions of objectivity in environmental science research and how they are influenced by inherent human dimensions in conservation efforts. Through understanding how science functions and shapes perceptions of facts, considering the places where it is generated, and articulating how it is applied and how it is perceived, a picture forms that can begin to connect disciplinary ideologies traditionally understood to be inherently disparate and non-consilient. This work has achieved to develop distinct, but interrelated conceptual foundations that could be conceived as a political ecology of marine systems, in this of case coral reefs, that integrates scientific accuracy (and precision) as a variable of human-dimensions. The pivotal conclusions are rooted in the following main outcomes: 1) a deconstruction of how scientific activities in marine space are influenced by its distinct geography––one that requires a consideration of different dimensions than what is understood to apply in terrestrial (and conventional) geographies; 2) an elucidation of how efforts in understanding and managing this space are contingent on the interplay between how truth-claims are generated, facts constructed and internalized, and how they then iterate in the social networks and appear in the material components of what is often called natural environments and processes.

The combination of the problematics inherent in the generation of scientific truth-claims, which are both geopolitically and culturally located, and the inherent challenges of understanding geographic dimensions in marine systems is not only articulated with this work, but also confronted in a way to propose both alternative conceptual grounds and practical solutions to overcome the obstacles such variances may, and commonly do present. The flexibility and potential of Q-methodology was shown in this work through the manner in which it was applied (Chapter 4) and presented (Chapter 5) with the purpose of gaining a comprehensive overview on issues as they are perceived by an epistemic community according to their self-referenced perceptions of importance and priority. 6.1 Subjectivities and Science

Scientific conclusions, if they are to be generally applicable, ultimately seek to be generic, universally relevant, and standardized. Their appearance in journals and other professional publications assumes a level of quality control through peer-review and scrutiny, and as such, obtains a particular level of authority and of validation and finality when emerging in print and academic journals. Actions that include significant investment of human and financial resources are based on the trust that society

130 has in “the scientist,” who carries a responsibility to know when something is correct based on the idea of impartial assessment that can be achieved only through the rigors of scientific training, many hours of study, and mental discipline. That impersonal, militant view of science, is an unrealized ideal, however, because science in practice also contains an equally-influential, but nearly always invisible subjective counterpart from which decisions are made and conclusions are rooted. The network of scientists is made up of a web of individuals who, like anyone, contain subjectivities and have personal preferences, and who struggle with principles that motivate “the scientist” as an individual who is part of society and part of a community and is also expected to extract those human tendencies to create universal truth. The Janus-like role in doing so is rarely acknowledged in considering knowledge, and neiher is the influence such a perspective may have on claims of fact. Several practical and material factors inhibit precision (and accuracy) in scientific observations made in marine environments. These relate to what may be conceived of as variances in individual and technological abilities and tendencies of observations in these environments, as well as simply the human fallibilities of observation, documentation and the subsequent social influences of exposition and dissemination of resulting epistemologies and ontologies: 1. Historical or “background” science: Histories of science in particular environments are the foundation on which current observations are made. Described in detail in Chapter 3, reefs in general were first interesting as biological receptacles of interesting creatures (versus an ecological focus of species and environmental interactions) in the 1700s. Later they became topics of interest to solve the deductive conclusions of atoll formation as laid out by Charles Darwin, which were refuted by Alexander Agassiz, in order to solve outstanding questions of the behavior of Earth’s crust. With the rise in trans-oceanic shipping and commerce, coincident with the development of Harrison’s clock that permitted accurate calculations of longitude and therefore released ships from being confined to well-known shipping routs, interest in reefs became a matter of shipping safety and maritime insurers. Their locations and characteristics were noted mainly with the intention of installing navigational markers and transportation devices that ensured safe passage through the commercially-entrained tropical regions where reefs grow. It was only in the mid-1900s, where interest in these systems as an ecosystem emerged. Therefore, although interest in these systems has a long history in science, the goals during each surge of research did not necessarily provide the data necessary to draw ecological conclusions that could be applied towards effective conservation measures today. 2. Shifting baseline mechanisms: This phenomenon depends on when a particular environment was first visited, what was noted about it, and how frequently one returns. As in any living system or organism, there are moments of excellent health and moments of sickness or weakness. In marine systems, if one considers corals, if the summer is particularly hot, for example, small patches may begin to bleach, but can recover if the coral don’t remain stressed. Even smaller cycles, such as tidal fluxes, will make a difference in the appearance of the ecosystem if one is counting fish or measuring clarity. Given that there is essentially no standardized baseline of these systems because

131 of the great variance each reef has in relation to its adjacent systems, it is difficult to determine overall ecosystem health because there is no true measure against which to compare and contrast observations. Despite the constant change inherent in ecosystems, both in the long and short-term, and sometimes permanent, when an environment is “first seen” often serves as the conditions of “normalcy.” 3. Expectations: This concept is tied closely to shifting baselines, but is based on what is believed as an ideal rather than when an environment is first seen. Books, films, and other media, as well as anecdotes and images that come from a particular, located area and described as common or typical are then believed to be the normal conditions. Given that most of the media and anecdotes often describe or focus on extremes, they often do not represent the average. Because many marine parks and protected areas in the Caribbean, for example, are suffering the consequences of intense coastal development and likely, combined effects of overexploitation, the images found in books on reefs serve as more of an ideal; nevertheless, in some cases, recovery of some reef areas seems to be occurring as well, as there is, for example, evidence of recovery of the long-spined sea- urchins (Diadema sp.), and important herbivore which had suffered a mass extinction in the 1980s. Expectations and ideals are therefore often universally applied as “stable” or “normal” conditions despite the inherent problems in doing so given the variety of reef ecosystems and the geographies in which they are found. 4. Geographic difference: There are obviously extreme differences in reef biodiversity in different ocean basins, as shown in Figure 2.6., which it is presumed also has an impact on ecosystem health, while it is also known that reefs in more remote regions, far from coastal development and population pressures are also in general better health than those easily accessed. Less obvious, however, is that there can also be extreme differences over very short geographic distances, within meters and kilometers. It is very difficult to see very far in the oceans, compared to land-systems; however, the variation over small distances can also vary greatly not only in sea-scape topographies, but also in general appearance, structure, and ecosystem health and biodiversity. There are several ways to “survey” large areas of the sea bed in coastal or shallow regions, some as simple as getting dragged behind a slow-motoring boat while recording a video of the bottom; and on a very clear (water) day, remote sensing technologies have also become possible tools to survey the shallow seas, as researchers are trying to develop technologies and strategies (e.g. band-isolation) to make remote sensing of reefs possible and useful. Nevertheless, even qualifying the variance seen across an area has become an issue of debate in reef systems, as uncertainty of accuracy and precision continue to haunt confirmation of results given the enormous variation in biodiversity and structure across short distances. 5. Political difference: Political and regulatory differences in how a reef site is managed or accessed has become a clear factor in reef health, or so it is presumed, given that this difference essentially boils down to reef-use. In Cuba, for example, the long-standing communist government requires that fishers apply for permits, of which there are only a limited number, given that reef fisheries are a

132 nationalized resource and therefore strictly regulated. Southwest Cuba also has on its shores some of the healthiest and most plentiful thickets of elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata), one of the most endangered species of coral, which extend for tens of meters in all directions. Although the political connection is merely presumed as a major factor in maintaining the health of these coral through enforcing limited use, it is partly what is driving many coral scientists in capitalist- oriented political systems to support severe restrictions on use in reef environments and creating no-take zones in marine parks or making some marine protected areas that would be off-limits to any human-exploitation or recreation activities. 6. Species Shifts: Environments and associated species-populations are continually changing, as paleontological work has proven. The idea that there is such thing as “stability” in the ecological systems is merely a perception of change (or lack thereof), how observations are made in time, and what features are observed. Our human time-frames and preferences also influence our judgements of stability and ideal conditions, and when seen over geologic time, nothing about the planet is stable. The fossil records reveal that something has always lived in the oceans, however the particular organisms may not be ideal in terms of what one may like to see. This is happening even with coral today as some scientists try to cultivate branched coral species (Acroporids, particularly staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis), see Figure 2.11) in experimental grow-farms and nurseries for potential transplantation in the environment, despite their difficulty in surviving under current environmental circumstances (as confirmed by their status as endangered species28). Therefore evaluations of preference and ideals of “ecosystem stability,” which is itself becoming a questionable concept regarding what exactly stability may mean, what it implies, or what is required to achieve it, can impact on how a particular ecosystem is perceived (May 2001). 7. Measurement and monitoring methods: Coral reef monitoring has become a science in itself. There are over a dozen different kinds of monitoring methods that range from using recreational SCUBA divers who are given a crash-course in creature identification, to complex methods that require significant training in biology and diving skills, rigorous scientific know-how and highly specialized gear and equipment. Besides this high degree of variance among those conducting the surveys, there are questions of standardization, leading to questions of what exactly should be measured in all regions, and when the measuring takes place both in terms of tidal cycles and times of year. Currently, the variables that are measured are hugely diverse and specific for regions and biodiversity. For example, some methods survey the presence of diseases as well as algae species and extent, fish-abundance and species prevalence, which again all fall back on the abilities of surveyors to correctly identify them. Questions of where exactly to make measurements also introduces questions of how often a site would be measured, and if the exact same transect will be measured (or can even be found or accessed) and so on. Remote sites are also more difficult (and expensive) to regularly monitor. Significant contention among researchers still exists regarding

28 The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/133381/0 (Accessed March 2010)

133 ideal survey methodologies, and as such, there has been no way to standardize data so to make accurate and precise comparisons of ecosystem conditions.

As is implied in the variables mentioned above, coming to a common consensus regarding observations is not as straight-forward as is commonly stated, despite the best intentions and most honest efforts. Those trained to observe these environments do so to the best of their abilities, as scientific training often includes a commitment to integrity of data and exposition, and a recognition of the importance of one’s reputation in the network. Scientists are usually careful to include data and cite previous peer-reviewed work to support their own, but nevertheless, there will inevitably be some influences of aforementioned factors that will introduce bias in drawing conclusions about the ecosystem. The processes of scientific enquiry in general (e.g. Latour 1987) and its increased complications in ocean systems, combined with the relative difficulty in continuous observation and monitoring ability of this environment therefore draws in some inherent bias and conceivably influences how conclusions are made about the environment or ecosystem of interest. This calls into question whether it is possible to generate a standard set of non- biased scientific conclusions, both accurate and precise. And, when seen in the context of scientists also being part of a social network that has an additional set of conditions of inclusion and exclusion, normative behaviors and traditions, and a set of prevailing paradigms that are both implicit and explicit, it is conceivable that scientific objectivity in environmental research is not likely achieved. To understand the subjective nature of the epistemic community of scientists or professionals provides an alternative way forward in finding consensus regarding situations that are based on a scientific foundation, in this case coral reef ecosystem conservation. Understanding the ideological grounds upon which scientific decisions are made by individuals in the community allows for particular insight that opens avenues of communication based on ideological priorities and agreement, or perceptions on which people will act. This view of the network is not meant to undermine the efforts of science and technology and in no way means to imply that scientific approaches are futile or deceptive, however this research underscores the importance and value of knowing and being able to draw out the subjectivities in a population whose reputation is contingent on denying them. Subjectivities not only are generated by location (geographic) and associations (network), but are also influenced by deep beliefs and preferred ideologies about human-nature relationships (Malthusian, Libertarian, etc.). Understanding subjectivities does not undermine the claims of truth, but instead defines their terms and therefore allows for an expanded, located and socially-inclusive narrative of conservation science that can be applied beyond the theoretical ideals. It is therefore more productive to admit and distill subjectivities rather than assume they do not exist base on the premise that natural science is not influenced by the networks that practice it, nor is influenced by the located nature of its data and the prevailing epistemologies. In this way it may be possible to find a different way forward when it comes to answering the call for urgent action in crisis environments. Management in environments has become one of increasing challenges, mostly because the perception of making no progress compared to continued use and destruction of sensitive ecosystems and

134 life-support systems, or “ecosystem services.” The pressures to make some measurable progress continue to increase and to salvage these services are growing, despite research showing alarming rates of decline. Although the institutional requirements to obtain funding usually entail a common mission and could and sometimes do influence which science will be supported and conducted, there is still a question of scientific and social validation of outcomes. In many cases, scientists find themselves on the defensive when questions arise as to why progress hasn’t been made in a particular environment, accused of political posturing, corporate pandering, and other questionable behavior given increasing competition for funding dollars. This work captures that although this suspect behavior certainly happens in reef conservation as well (see Section 1.3.1), it is simply “human” to make mistakes or have bias, whether intentional or not, but importantly, it also emphasizes the importance of considering ways in which to extract and de-emphasize the role of power and neutralize dominant paradigms that are supported through the unequal power-relationships within epistemic networks. In idealized resource management, especially in the marine environment, protective measures are taken not because the answer is known but because it isn’t, and well justifies the “better safe than sorry” cliché––a guiding concept often called the “precautionary principle” in which actions are taken with often the worst case scenario in mind if actions are not taken. To decide how to be “precautionary” and to bolster our policy decisions, we apply the “best available science” concept to strategies such as “adaptive management” and “integrative management” to justify and ground regulatory planning, restrictive uses and exploitation rights, all of which involves an overwhelming human element. This seems fairly straight forward. However, several problems are evident in this simplified concept of how management is supposed to work if it is to be based on sound positivist knowledge of the environment and yet fully applicable in the human cultural settings in which it is to be utilized. A potential adaptation to the mis- directed emphasis on uncertainty may begin with a approaching this uncertainty as a measurable principle that is not contingent on some number of supporters, the goals of particular organizations and sponsoring funders, or the reputation and disproportionate power of individuals in a network. If uncertainty can be distinguished from this pervasive white-noise of conflicting viewpoints inherent in any environmental discourse, it can be appropriately organized, lose its influence and power as a point of debate, and be dealt with as a variable that can better elucidate consensus rather than entrench conflict.

6.2 Marine Geographies and Science

Like so many other systems discussed in geographical issues regarding space, the ocean presents a peculiar analytical framework that is based on the social constructions of the marine environment through science of marine space and ecosystems. There are two main components to this: The first exists in the particular material realities of ocean space––both nearshore and beyond––that exist apart from our knowing them, understanding them, or researching them. The second contributes to not only our understanding of this space, but also our conclusions about how to regulate, manage and continue research in this space. On the most basic level, as inherently terrestrial creatures, we have a very difficult

135 time surviving in the ocean environment without special skills, and highly specialized technologies and gear. We cannot, for instance, cross oceans or live for any extended period of time in this space without a vessel. It would be worthwhile, therefore, to deconstruct ocean space with the intention of reconstructing it through scientific and technological aspects that articulate some basic material tenets, which approach the boundaries of our knowledge, control, and perceived limits of understanding ocean space. These can be condensed as basic ideas of dominating or human habitation at sea, as we have so effectively achieved on land; understanding dimensional aspects of the oceans in terms of breadth and depth; and deconstructing what we may generically refer to as a geography of ocean space in terms of how we define places and features in the ocean. This work focuses on the construction of scientific knowledge regarding ocean space, what the contingencies and consequences are of the processes that shape that science and understanding, and how these may fit into its history and modern socio-political conventions as articulated by such work as Doel and others (2006), Rozwadowki (2005), Deacon (1983), and Peterson and others (1996). In addition, this work also clarifies and underpins Steinberg’s (2001) socio-economic exposition on the efforts to annihilate ocean space and the social constructs that evolved to do so––concepts of ocean space in terms of territorialization, regulation and commerce––and provides evidence that attendant questions of scientific determinations, limitations, and technological abilities in terms of “conquering,” knowing, and documenting knowledges of the sea are the basis for their trajectories. Territorial and rights issues in ocean space are also made more difficult to decide, given that resources such as fisheries are mobile, while the resources they rely on for survival, such as reefs, are not. Furthermore, the deep-seated idea of the seas as a commons despite the increasing territorialization of coastal space introduces additional quandaries regarding rights of access and resource distribution across space and scales. This research reveals that conducting work in this environment touches on different sensibilities than when doing similar work in terrestrial spaces. The critical approach applied here confirms that science, technology, commodification and regulation of ocean space are intricately linked by the processes that shape our knowledge and perceptions of the sea.

Habitation/Domination: For reasons that could conceivably be attributed as cost––or alternatively, the historical lack of technological and scientific investment to make affordable––we have not yet been able to expand human existence into ocean Figure: 6.1: Rendition of the Julesʼ Undersea Lodge from their homepage (courtesy of: Julesʼ Undersea Lodge, Key Largo, FL) space and inhabit the seas on a

136 permanent basis as we have so effectively done on land, however, there have been attempts to do so for quite some time. Although there are houseboats, live-a-boards and cruise ships, all of which have a population of individuals onboard generally at any time, when it comes to living in the oceans, we have so far been unsuccessful. Considering the various experimental projects that represent our efforts to control and live in ocean space, such as the MarineLab Undersea Laboratory or the Jules’ Undersea Lodge (Figure 6.1), both still in operation and which were built in the 1970s29, we nevertheless have not heavily invested in such possibilities of long-term marine habitation and are therefore still relatively incapable of permanently settling in the ocean itself. Even if the cost and technologies were on-hand to develop a nearshore marine “neighborhood,” the material challenges would conceivably drastically change every social convention of living in a community we could imagine. Therefore, despite isolated and temporary advances of short-term habitation under its surface as developed by the Marine Resources Development Foundation––important as demonstrating that the possibilities are not entirely beyond our reach––we still struggle to dominate or control the ocean for human occupancy. The closest possible successes in reaching into ocean space are efforts such as land reclamation projects in coastal Holland, or Louisiana in the U.S., which essentially hold back the sea with dams and levees. Recently, massive and extremely expensive land-building projects in the Persian Figure 6.2: The Palm Jumeirah in the Persian Gulf, Dubai, U.A.E. (credit: Google/Digital Globe 2010) Gulf have taken shape, such as the Palm Islands, which consist of the Palm Jumeirah, a self- proclaimed 8th Wonder of the World (Figure 6.2) , the Palm Jebel Ali, and the Palm Deira, as well as The World (in mid-development and 70% sold, according to Nakheel Properties30, the development company in charge of he project), and The Universe (currently on hold), all located offshore of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). Regardless of the socio-political and financial problems currently surrounding these projects31, and claims of some technological problems such as some islands of The World sinking back into the sea (denied by the U.A.E.-owned development company), these offshore man-made islands and the successes in attracting buyers to purchase them, seems to affirm the intense atavistic drive to be near the sea, despite the attendant troublesome practicalities or inordinate expenses of doing so. In addition to showing some technological success in land-reclamation and land-development, we have, despite limited successes, become quite technologically adept at moving across the oceans, and

29 Both owned by the Marine Resources Development Foundation, Underwater Habitats http://www.mrdf.org/ MRDF_Habitats.html

30 Nakheel homepage, access April 2010: http://www.nakheel.com/en

31 “Pitfalls in paradise: why Palm Jumeirah is struggling to live up to the hype: Low-paid workers and villa gripes cast a cloud over ‘eighth wonder of the world’ in Dubai.” by Robert Booth, The Guardian, 26 April, 2008.

137 do have vessels that allow us to live and exist on its surface for extended periods of time; although doing so still requires specialized resources, and in some cases, an industry-devoted infrastructure (such as those catering to cruise ships). Living on the sea, or “at sea,” as is often stated, inevitably entails a level of risk and exposure to the elements, relatively costly expenses for highly specialized equipment and the necessary skills to use it; and even on a small vessel, living at sea still requires access to ports and terrestrial resources32. Therefore, regardless of the minor adaptations made to exist at sea, ocean space remains something outside of normative human habitation, continuing to be constructed as unknown, wild and untamable, dangerous, restricted, and expensive. Science and technology are arguably the underpinning for success should these efforts be expanded or chosen as a direction of human advancement. It is therefore relevant to examine the processes and socio-political influences that direct how we choose to study the oceans or invest in technologies to better maneuver in these spaces, which ultimately begins with an examination of epistemological and ontological underpinnings. A Multi-Dimensional Geography of Ocean Space: Ultimately, the primary consideration of understanding the oceans scientifically and technologically is contingent on the way it is conceived as a space that does not only consist of a two-dimensional aspect of area and breadth, as do the terrestrial settings we are accustomed to dealing with, but also must be considered in terms of three-dimensional aspects of depth and the huge variations in physical conditions that come with it, while a function of a fourth dimension of time in terms of the movement inherent in a liquid environment, also plays a role in defining and interpreting its materialities and how it is understood, depicted, integrated, and named. The geography of the ocean as a space of area is the only likeness it shares with geography of terrestrial systems. However, the area or expanse of ocean must also be qualified and is dependent on whether that “area” is considered the a “flat, featureless” surface, usually expressed in terms of distance, or whether one is considering the seascapes of mountains, hills, caves, canyons and plains found on the land beneath, also described as bathymetry. The space in between, from the sea-bed to the surface also contains features of a variety of packets of different salinities, temperatures, various chemistries and chemical ratios of “natural” elements, as well as pollutants, highly variable amounts of oxygen and nutrients. These then support different attendant ecological zones that either move through, or are swept with their preferred environments (e.g. cold-core eddies, migration routes), or alternatively, can be essentially stationary and fairly consistent over time (e.g. Sargasso Sea). In other words, the ocean’s thickness, as well as its surface area, is a highly complex mixture of zones and distinctively differentiating regions that can be both stationary and mobile, and usually vary in thickness, scale and duration, depending on which features and factors are taken into account to support a particular explanation of its geography. Although many of these marine features could conceivably compare, i.e. find a similar counterpart, in terrestrial geographies, what seems unique to marine spaces is the distinctive manner in which movement also defines permanent features, which is highly contrasting and not necessarily

32 For example, played out as an important theme in the 1995 film Waterworld, in which soil was among the most sought-after and valued resources.

138 appropriate in terrestrial settings. Some places are relatively fixed in marine space, particularly those that relate to land, such as undersea features like seamounts (Hawaiian island chain), mountains (Mid- Atlantic Ridge), trenches (Puerto Rico or Mariana’s Trench), and continental shelves of various extent that encircle our dry, habitable land and represent sea-level stands in Earth’s geologic past. However, we have also begun to name places that describe consistent movements across space, most obviously ocean currents. Although these currents are variable, for example, sometimes reaching closer inshore or further offshore, sometimes spinning off eddies (e.g. Gulf of Mexico) or switching directions (e.g. Indian Ocean), they are defined by the fairly consistent or cyclical movement of water, sometimes faster and sometimes slower, but present regardless. Even concepts such as Rossby waves, although not really technically located in any one place for any long period of time, are always present somewhere in the oceans, and are recognizable on the basis of their patterns and movement across ocean space and are thus a pervasive feature, albeit a mobile one. They are physically consistent and located at a single point in time, and yet at the same time geographically inconsistent (Platzman 1968). Movement in the ocean therefore is both a definable, and very much a fixed feature, such as ocean currents, which actually represent areas of predicted mobilities (and the climate regions they define and alter by their existence) and therefore also describe temporary features in place that are, however, consistent in human time-frames. Some fixed features are also only present because of these “fixed mobilities,” such as the Sargasso Sea, which has entirely different physical, material and ecological characteristics from its bounding currents that swirl around it, and thereby also maintain its existence while fixing its location. A marine geography and considerations that take into account marine spaces, must therefore inherently include a concept of both fixity and motion or mobility in relation to one another, to land, to the capabilities that measure it, and acknowledge that although the ocean seems like and often is depicted as a homogenous zone, sometimes with some arrows to define dominant ocean gyres, it is in reality a mosaic of varying regions that are potentially connected, physically interwoven, but not necessarily exchanging characteristics, and even more rarely as consistent as how maps of ocean space depict. Technically, in fact, many currents and ocean regions are simply components of a very large “conveyor belt circulation system”––a global ocean current, consisting of both horizontal and vertical components, that is believed to be important in global heat distribution and, as the name implies, circulates water around the entire globe through the connections of surface currents and physio-chemical differences between ocean basins. This large scale circulation is typified by a vertical component that transports water from the bottom of the sea to its surface at various points in on the globe (Indian Ocean, North Pacific) while dense surface waters sink to the bottom (North Atlantic), a process that has been determined by isotope ratio dating to take an average time of about 2000 years (Broecker 1991; Brown et al 1989). It would seem contradictory to describe oceans as distinctly regional while also claiming global connection, but given the known vertical movement and horizontal, i.e. surficial, aspects of ocean circulation dynamics, one can argue that the ocean is both united (Conveyor Belt Circulation) and regionally distinct (different ocean gyres that comprise general ocean circulation at the surface, e.g. North Atlantic Gyre) (Mikolajewicz and Maier-Reimer 1994). Despite the paradox and potentially part of the

139 reason for mis-perceptions of this space, both views are, in fact, correct, and as such create a complex geography that requires an understanding of both concepts of added dimensions of boundaries not only across space, but also “downward,” as well as considerations of how these happen in or are influenced by time as well as changes considered external, such as atmospheric change or plate tectonics. To observe some of these various dimensions and characteristics, even in the most simple ways, can be achieved from conducting experiments from a vessel, where these boundaries of varying packages of water can be clearly seen as a drastic change in color, weed lines, or even distinctly contrasting surface features, while measuring samples retrieved by devices lowered into the water column can easily confirm chemical, biological and physical variations. Nevertheless, compared to the size of the ocean, the sampling sites, even though numbering in the thousands, do not compare with the potential of trillions more33. Alternatively, with remote-sensing technologies, surface (or near-surface) features can be defined on the basis of changes in not only color, but also bio-productivity (chlorophyll/plankton) and temperatures. Even relative sea-surface heights and surface features, also two factors rarely considered given our concept of water being generally flat and even across a surface, can be visualized as a bumpy and highly topographically variable environment (e.g. TOPEX/Poseidon project34), therefore drawing into sharp focus that oceans, although spatially fixed as non-terrestrial spaces, are at the same time highly mobile as they exist on a spinning earth and therefore necessitate the complexities of geophysical fluid dynamics to understand their rules of motion and transport. Nevertheless, remote-sensing technologies do not (yet?) have the capabilities to peer into the depths of the oceans, and as such, cannot generate the dimensional aspects inherent in ocean space, despite adding concrete pieces of the geographic puzzle over time. It therefore becomes clear that thinking about geographies in the ocean––of the ocean––requires a view that is drastically different from land-based geographic perspectives. In part, this altered vision is inevitably tied to the consequences of the limited potential of technical observation devices and simply our abilities to access this region, all of which are usually costly and represent significant investments of skill, experience and abilities. Such challenges tie even the most basic concepts of understanding the material variance inherent in ocean space to the domain of rigorous oceanographic science. Such a requirement is necessary to understand the physicality of ocean space, but simultaneously can easily be seen as the reason for traditionally consigning geographies of this space exclusively to the domain of the natural sciences, and thus perpetuating and reproducing an asocial “non-human” perspective of marine geography. This particular and conventional approach decisively limits theoretical engagements in comprehensive marine geographic perspectives relating to human-dimensions and essentially disregards sociological influences and perspectives, which ultimately determine the epistemological, socially, and technologically-acceptable processes to create knowledge about the sea and its ecosystems.

33 Given that the oceans are continuously changing over time, the actual number of sampling potential is infinite.

34 TOPEX/Posidon Homepage: http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/

140 6.3. Geographic Influences in Environmental Conservation

Management in terms of marine protected areas (MPAs) happens on local scales and management professionals usually make every effort to apply scientific findings to plot their policy- strategies. But scientific principles that are assumed to be generally universal and neutral are, in all practicality, exiled from the original settings in which they were conducted, such as laboratories or particular field sites. This de-location of scientific fact renders the specificities of local human geographies as background circumstances and the expectation is that the conclusions are applicable to all relevant settings in the same way, for example, the lack of fish automatically means overfishing regardless of whether mass mortalities, excessive effluent, or extreme conditions in environmental conditions played a role in population dynamics. Although this may be the most obvious conclusion, it may not be, and in fact often is not the main cause of the lack of fish. Considering the many other variables that can also affect fish populations on a reef or in an area (e.g. shifting migration patterns, larvae-destroying pollutants, cyclical abundance of predators, destruction of habitat, unsuccessful breeding seasons), drawing the most simple conclusion of, for example, seeing more people is more than likely not appropriate––yet encouraged as a legitimate method of science. Particularly in marine environments, the implicit authority given scientists is accentuated by the particular difficulties of access for the “average” individual. The grand conclusion that all fishing should be restricted (e.g. Jackson 1998) is given significant merit, although the real cause of “no fish” is uncertain and the consequences of applying such a policy without considering the proximal social systems could potentially generate an entire new set of problems. Political ecological studies conducted in coastal Africa, the Caribbean, and other developing systems have shown that strictly regulating or banning fishing by applying misguided conclusions about causation based on out-of-place assumptions can significantly affect community livelihoods and create tension within all facets of the social systems of that environment, potentially causing social unrest or deepen poverty. General scientific conclusions can therefore only provide part of the whole picture even though there is a tendency to assume and expect that it reveals most everything that is necessary to know. The extraction from place and conformity of exposition within the sciences entirely removes the scientist as person, but rather poses the scientist as mechanism or a technology. Written evidence of this is found in the manner of textual expression of science, which has since the mid-1900s entirely changed. Early scientific texts were eloquent narratives that included glints of personality and opinion, within the expositions of observations. These have since been replaced by the systematic, dry and standardized prose that is typical in scientific papers today, further entrenching the idea that the results were defined without the influences of personal preferences, judgement, bias, or belief. The positioning of science as universal is therefore further validated by its standardized exposition. However, science fails in its integration of influential social systems that may be visible in the environment, i.e. a political ecology of environment. The particular view taken in this work takes a turn from the idea of political ecology, which most often observe human-environment interactions from the

141 perspective of humans in the environment. Alternatively, when political ecologic ideas are applied from the perspective of the environment––how particular human behaviors may act to re-shape the environmental conditions (or how they are measured and observed) and therefore, importantly, how environments are then perceived and influenced––it provides a way not only to incorporate and in some cases correlate political and social structures, and therefore also to bridge the science-social science divide. A direct approach to negotiating and grounding this perspective on the connections between people, their actions, their beliefs and their environment can provide another dimension of what is known of the environment as a whole system in qualitative terms. Applying a method that takes into account the subjectivities that influence all conclusions, whether “official” and policy-related, formal and scientific, or informal and anecdotal, Q-Methodology can provide a repeatable and quantitative means to facilitate the manner in which truth-claims about the environment are negotiated and judged by making uncertainties clear and organizing priorities within a community debating them.

6.4 Applying Q-Methodology in Environmental Knowledge

Q-methodology is a flexible method that can be applied in a far more stringent manner (e.g. strictly structured statement sampling method) or a more unstructured manner (issue statements based only on interviews) than what was applied in this work. Despite its flexibility and its effective use as delving into self-referential tendencies and subjectivities, there has been a resistance to apply Q- methodology in the manner it was used in this work. Typically Q-Methodology is not employed in scientific or “fact-based” claims because of the presumption that scientific results or scientific truth-claims lack subjectivity and therefore cannot be subjectively organized. Although this may be true for some statements that are considered “facts” (e.g. 2+2=4, or the average salinity of seawater is 35‰), this research has shown that most scientific statements are highly subjective, especially when attempting to make sense of highly complex environmental feedback systems. This research documents that scientific facts are constrained by a particular social and technological order of operations and epistemologies that includes histories of scientific research, sourcing, technological advancements (and knowledge or access of those), the places and spaces in which these processes occur, as well as individual awareness and comprehensions of relevant “facts” and advancements. Therefore this Q-study approaches a new domain regarding qualification of facts and empirical information, in that “factual” information, when understood to be a matter of how the aforementioned components of fact are accepted and internalized or rejected, can be effectively scrutinized with Q-method to distill the enormous variation among scientists, management professionals, and any others who are part of the relevant epistemic community. Given that the significance in environmental interpretations and the practical ordering of the statements in the matrix is contingent on how truth-claims are preferenced, selectively favored or applied, they become part of the identity of individuals within the epistemic community, influenced by funding structures, network allegiances, preferred ontologies and disciplinary approaches, and thereby are highly subjective. And as these scientific results filter through the network, attitudes and beliefs to support or

142 discredit particular conclusions are developed, reproduced, internalized and incorporated within the epistemic network, and often outside of these networks. The media provides an obvious example of how conclusions can be adopted in various forms, emphasizing particular points to support a viewpoint or mission or goal and further spins subjectivities. Q-method can therefore be effectively applied regarding issues that are about the environment because of the way in which problems have been constructed and manifest outside the community that generates the facts, and underemphasize the innately human elements inherent in issues of conservation, use, resource extraction, etc. This method does not “eliminate” bias, but instead separates it into discernible attributes of the community. Part of what distinguishes this work from other Q-methodology research is its application towards examining scientific information that is considered factual and absolute (i.e., presumed to lack subjectivity), and its demonstration that when scientific information is applied to conservation beliefs that apply science and management ideologies, professions of objectivity do contain bias and subjectivities that can be measured. Given that the word bias is a “four letter word” in professional scientific circles, but nevertheless exists, it too should be defined or addressed as a first step toward disregarding it. The type of bias that scientists reject is that which is intentional and driven by ulterior motives, or unknown (and often selfish) goals; however, the bias that this method can separate can be considered a form of innocent bias, or subjectivity, which is deeply set and built from influences from localized or anecdotal experiences (e.g. poor areas cannot manage their own resources) or perceptions of society and the human- nature relationship (e.g. overpopulation), but believed to be objective deductions. In most cases, particularly in scientific circles, bias isn’t even known or acknowledged, which certainly aligns with the premise that it doesn’t exist in positivist knowledge-seeking methods. The general disassociation of science as absolute, that is disconnected from the human and fallible elements that created it, has traditionally discouraged applying Q-method as a systematic and rigorous tool to examine the social elements inherent in scientifically-based conservation. The conclusions of applying Q-methodology to coral reef conservation issues, as outlined in the tables and charts in sections 5.3 and 5.4, provide concrete insight and reveal characteristics about the community of researchers as well as underscore how this environment is constructed as one in crisis. Importantly, this method can also reveal the differences within a network, and some predictive elements when it comes to what issues may be more tenable to negotiation and therefore action. These charts and tables can be used as a tool to guide management and research questions, and can also be applied to characterize the social constituents that comprise the network and loosely control its framework by shaping and re-shaping its boundaries. The awareness of particular characteristics that may be inherent among individuals in the network can serve as a powerful tool to direct new ways in which to negotiate urgent conservation issues and direct research agenda based on a systematic method of prioritization. By explicitly and quantitatively defining what characteristics the network contains, and how they agree or disagree, conservation or research goals and interpretations can be presented in terms of what would propel or inhibit effective actions, particularly in environmental issues. In this case, they have also allowed some insight in how society and human populations are viewed when it comes to conservation

143 issues that are traditionally approached as a problem of the environment. Additionally, given the increasingly charged and contentious atmosphere of global conservations issues, this method provides a way to negotiate oppositional viewpoints, underemphasize the influences of prevailing paradigms and the implicit connotations of adhering to them, and can present a “character-analysis” of the range of attitudes or core beliefs that are prevalent in the community, which in this case, a community which has declared a common goal of long-term conservation of a sensitive ecosystems. The limits to this system fall mainly on the researcher in terms of the initial steps of this process, beginning with having confidence in a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, as well as ensuring that an appropriate mix of respondents has been chosen (and participated) in the survey to assure the range of potential attitudes one seeks to uncover. If the researcher becomes trapped or misguided in these initial steps, it can render an entire Q-study to be without merit. Therefore, significant advantage goes to those researchers who have either thoroughly researched an issue from all angles, or a solid background or possibly several contacts who can provide some insight as to whether the range of issues has been confronted that are within the sphere of debates on the chosen topic. Access to individuals in the field is therefore crucial to developing a valid concourse. In this case, my own background in the natural sciences as marine scientist, and continued, albeit somewhat limited, participation in field surveys, along with my long-standing associations with practitioners in the field, has served to provide a solid understanding of current issues as well as a historical context for the problems and ongoing debates in coral reef science specifically, and marine science in general. The evolution of my interest to turn towards unraveling sociological conditions under which scientific understanding is generated and perceived, however has distanced me as one who may favor any particular ontological viewpoint and turned the focus of my work towards a goal of contributing to the needs of effectively conserving ocean ecosystems. This position as part “insider” and part “outsider” to the world of reef science and conservation provides the advantage of working from a position of “critical subjectivity” wherein one “raise[s]...to consciousness [one’s prior experience] and use[s] it as part of the inquiry (Reason 1988:12). More recent work has also shown that profound truths regarding the culture and behaviors of a group, despite their knowledge of being observed, can be revealed through such a gaze (Monahan and Fisher 2010). Although such a semi-embedded vantage point for the researcher is certainly not required to achieve relevant results in Q-Methodology, it undoubtedly facilitates understanding and recognizing core attitudes and allows the researcher to engage in a less stringently structured concourse as is typical in Q-studies. Equally-valid results would also be obtainable with less experience in the queried issue, as demonstrated by many other Q-Methodology studies, however the researcher in that case would likely benefit from a rigorously structured concourse development to ensure an additional level of validation and ease of interpretation, given a less intimate understanding of the issue or limited experience in the field. In hindsight, it may have been interesting to more aggressively pursue data with which a social network analysis could have been conducted to see if there is a connection between the attitudes found from the Q-study and the institutions or social structures with which respondents are affiliated or

144 associate with. Such an endeavor would have required more respondents however to glean valid results, which is directly counter to what is known to achieve the most valuable results in Q-methodology. Such information may produce clear associations or communication gaps that also play a role in inhibiting conflict resolution (Krauss et al 2006). Nevertheless, the benefits in applying Q-methodology to environmental problems is that this kind of strategy democratically highlights points on which real policy can be negotiated by opening up the commonalities among those who may be negotiating it. If it is understood, for example, that most everyone agrees that more regulatory enforcement is considered important and is positioned as a high- priority issue, it is likely that any policy that supports stronger enforcement structures will likely achieve cooperation and produce results in terms of efforts towards achieving that goal, regardless of the differing opinions on other issues. Beginning with agreement and working through and fostering consensus on common problems or issues that all agree require attention also confers more trust among participants and de-emphasizes the differences of the general attitudes found within the population. By finding points on which all agree and which also allow information about the resources to be freely exchanged, the disagreements, for example, whether local or global pressures are to blame as the causes for environmental degradation, become less influential as people will tend to want to agree with one another (Butler 1999; Innes and Booher 1999). Q-methodology therefore presents a potential way to build and develop effective management in complex adaptive systems . A method that clarifies the points and issues on which people do agree will allow negotiation and organization of resources to first achieve those steps and which can also have a secondary affect of allowing for more compromise on other issues as people better understand what opinions and attitudes they have in common with each other. Fundamental barriers to environmental planning and effective resource regulation have been shown to be most influenced by a lack of agreement on goals and lack of trust (Lachapelle et al 2003). Additionally, other recent work sociological work has shown that if people are aware that they share particular views, they are more likely to successfully negotiate and compromise on issues they do not agree on (Swaab et al 2002). Given that Q-Methodology is a system that can find consensus and agreement among individuals who claim a common goal but who do not necessarily share the same beliefs or attitudes, this strategy can therefore be enormously instrumental in directly addressing among the most often cited obstacles that inhibit effective environmental policy by offering a way to address negotiation impasse. Recent work has shown that it is important to understand attitudes of stakeholders35 involved in environmental issues in order to not only assess behaviors in place, in terms of how they perceive the environment of interest, but also to find a way to generate and foster connections between disparate groups by exposing and explaining those attitudes (Cordano et al 2004). Extensive work on how attitudes affect behavior and can expose intention has been extensively conducted by Ajzen (2001, 2005), and essentially confirms that knowing attitudes are a meaningful way to interpret and predict intentions.

35 The term stakeholder is often used to describe the collection of individuals or social groups who have some vested interest in the ecosystem, however its use eliminates the various power-relationships and associated differing attitudes that are inherent in the variety of groups or networks. This distinction is necessary in the premise of choosing respondents in Q-Methodology and as such, the term stakeholder does not suffice as a respondent group.

145 Additionally, conflict resolution studies have confirmed that self-referential judgement and bias interfere with potentially accepting compromise and positively negotiating towards a goal, regardless of the intended goal (Thomspson et al 2006); while the lack of understanding such attitudes and general ideologies that are inherently contained in all individuals can hamper communication efforts that are designed to reach that goal (Krauss et al 2006). Understanding attitudes in the context of agreement and preferencing of particular scientific insight would therefore provide another way to break through a seemingly insurmountable task of effectively negotiating environmental policy. This work demonstrates the applicability of Q to just about any problem of the environment in which there exists debate and a discourse of crisis regarding both the steps of mitigation and the factual information on which these steps were concluded. By incorporating the considerations of the social aspects of how science works in place, how particular paradigms are preferenced and reproduced, the geographic influences and difficulties of making observations––and in the case of marine systems, even accessing ocean space––and the particular peculiarities and power relationships of any social network, it becomes apparent that despite its potential bias if inappropriately applied by the researcher, Q- methodology can provide a useful tool to understand the many facets of the problems and solutions in environmental conservation efforts, particularly those environments that have become of great interest because of an agreed perception of serious decline and crisis. Ultimately issues of management, conservation and knowledge, both sociologic and scientific as they take place in space, particularly marine space, are thereby inherently geographic problems; however few have been approached by applying this perspective and bridging strategies to close the gap between the issues of “natural” marine space, which are usually consigned to oceanographers, and issues of human dimensions, which have been traditionally restricted to social science and policy disciplines. This work provides evidence that these perspectives be effectively connected, but it also demonstrates that geographic applications that integrate human geographies, physical geographies and science are possible, and provide useful information that can be applied towards solving issues of environmental crisis management by rendering a comprehensive image of the situation and the circumstances that constitute it as perceived by the epistemic community. A geographic foundation is absolutely necessary to achieve a complete perspective, which is crucial if environmental problems are to be confronted in a timely manner in a context of increasing deterioration and urgency––even “crisis” as is perceived in reef conservation–– attributed to an unwieldy number of factors that include coastal development; elevating coastal populations; resource-exploitation pressures; regulatory, institutional, and policy contradictions; and entrenchment of uncertainties with accelerated global change. To articulate why these problems seem to plague effective conservation or mitigation measures through examining the human and technological limitations of the particular environments and to deconstruct the processes that generate the knowledge on which decisions are made may be a means by which not only a more comprehensive basis can be applied to decision-making processes, but also elucidate socially-influenced driving forces and individual preferences that create perceptions and generate action in environments of crisis.

146 APPENDIX

A.1 Program Application: Applying “R” to Q-studies

R is an open source program, available on the internet at , and supported by a large network of researchers. R was applied in this study and was preferenced over other options to handle Q data (e.g. PQ method). Books are available to introduce users to R, e.g. Statistics: An Introduction using R by Michael J Crawley. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (2005). The code below was written with significant assistance from J. Elsner.

Words in caps below (DATA, TABLE) are user-defined; Factor numbers are also user-defined. The data table (TABLE) was made in a simple text editor. Column heads were respondent code numbers, while row titles were the statement numbers. The data consisted of the agreement values (-5 to +5) the respondent assigned to each particular statement. This was saved as a simple text file (.txt) in the R- workspace folder. See A2 for raw data output. Below is the code used in R, Version 2.10.0.:

>DATA=read.table(“TABLE.txt”, T)! !:reads in the text table (TABLE.txt) that is !!!!!!called!DATA

>DATA! !!!!!:prints the table called DATA

>cor(DATA[,2:35])! !!!:correlates the data table from columns 2 !!!!!!through 35, given 34 respondents.

>print(factanal(DATA[,2:35],factors=3,rotation=”varimax”),cutoff=0) !!!!!!:calculates a factor analysis using three !!!!!!factors with a varimax rotation. Data results !!!!!!in a list of factor loadings by respondents on !!!!!!(in this case) three factors.

>order(factanal(DATA[,2:35],3,rotation=”varimax”,scores=”regression”)$scores[,1]) !!!!!!:this ordered the statements by their !!!!!!regression scores, and results in the scores !!!!!!of the first factor. To get the statement !!!!!!sorts for the additional two factors, the last !!!!!!brackets were changed to [,2] and [,3].

>sort(factanal(DATA[,2:35],3,rotation=”varimax”,scores=”regression”)$scores[,1]) !!!!!!:this results in an ordering of the !!!!!!statements by their z-scores for the first !!!!!!factor. To get the z-scores for the remaining !!!!!!factors, the last brackets were changed !!!!!!to [,2] and [,3] as above.

147 A.2: Screenshot of the Q-sort Matrix Using the Flash-Q Software

Figure A.2: This is the matrix that the researchers in this study completed as produced by the “Flash Q” program by Christian Hackaert36. Although there are several software programs available specifically designed to handle Q-sorts, Flash-Q was chosen simply out of personal preference.

The first step (prior to this sort) is making three “piles” of agreement (which are visible at the bottom of the figure). In the second step, seen here, respondents sort these piles into degrees of agreement or preference, according to how strongly they agree or disagree with them. In this example, statements were entered at random to demonstrate.

36 Flash Q program homepage.

148 A.3 FSU Human Subjects Committee Internal Review Board Approval Letter.

149 REFERENCES

Adams, W. H. (2001) Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World, 2nd Ed. London: Routledge. 445p.

Addams, Helen (2001) “Q-Methodology” IN Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology. [H. Addams and J. Proops, eds]. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. p.15-40.

Addams, Helen and J. Proops (2001) Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Agardy, Tundi, Peter Bridgewater, Michael P. Crosby, Jon Day, Paul K. Dayton, Richard Kenchington, Dan Laffoley, Patrick McConney, Peter A. Murray, John E. Parks, and Lelei Peau (2003) Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13, p.353-367.

Agassiz, Alexander (1883) The Tortugas and Florida Reefs. From Memoirs of American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol.XI. Read Nov. 15, 1882. Cambridge, June 1883

–––––––––––– (1894) A reconnaissance of the Bahamas and of the elevated reefs of Cuba: Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology Bulletin 26, p.1-203.

–––––––––––– (1895) A visit to the Bermudas in March, 1894, Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology Bulletin, p.205-281.

–––––––––––– (1898) A visit to the Great Barrier Reef of Australia in the steamer “Croyden” during April and May, 1896, Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology Bulletin 28, p.93-148.

–––––––––––– (1903) On the formation of barrier reefs and of the different types of atolls: Royal Soc. London Proc. v.71. p.412-414.

Agassiz, Louis (1847) Introduction to the Study of Natural History. Greeley & McElrath, Tribune Buildings: New York. 38p.

Ajzen, Icek (2001) Nature and Operation of Attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, p.27-58.

–––––––––––– (2005) Attitudes, Personality and Behavior. Berkshire, U.K.: Open University Press

Anthony, K.R.N., D.I. Kline, G. Diaz-Pulido, S. Dove, O. Hoegh-Guldberg (2008) Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, p.17,442-17,446.

Aronson, Richard (2009) President, the International Society for Coral Reef Studies. personal communication, October 31, 2009.

150 Aronson, Richard and William Precht (2006) Conservation, precaution and Caribbean coral reefs. Coral Reefs, 25, p.441-450.

Asdal, Kristin (2005) Returning the Kingdom to the King: A Post-Constructivist Response to the Critique of Positivism. Acta Sociologica 48(3), p.253-261.

Ayala, Francisco (2007) Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, In the Light of Evolution I: Adaptation and Complex Design, pp. 8567-8573.

Barabasi, Albert-Laszio (2003) Linked. New York: Plume, Penguin Group.

Barry, John and John Proops (1999) Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics 28, p.337-345.

Beebe, William (1928) Beneath Tropic Seas: A Record of Diving Among the Coral Reefs of Haiti. G.P. Putnam's Sons: New York, London.

Bell, Johann D., Blake D. Ratner, Ilona Stobutzki, and Jamie Oli (2006) Addressing the coral reef crisis in developing countries. Ocean & Coastal Management. 49, p.976-985.

Bellwood, D.R., T.P. Hughees, C. Folke and M. Nyström (2004) Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature, 429, p.827-833.

Bentley, Jerry H. (1999) Sea and Ocean Basins as Frameworks of Historical Analysis. Geographical Review, 89(2), Oceans Connect, p.215-224.

Berendse, Myrte and Carel Roessingh (2007) Hidden and unspoiled: image building in the tourism industry of Belize. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 1(3), p.267-282.

Birkeland, Charles, Ed. (1997) Life and Death of Coral Reefs. New York: Chapman & Hall. 536p.

Blake, Andon and Gary A. Campbell (2007) Conflict over flying fish: The dispute between Trinidad & Tobago and Barbados. Marine Policy, 31, p.327-335.

Blanchon, Paul, Brian Jones, and William Kalbfleisch (1997) Anatomy of a Fringing Reef Around Grand Cayman: Storm Rubble, Not Coral Framework. Journal of Sedimentary Research 67(1), p.1-16.

Blanchon, Paul and John Shaw (1995) Reef drowning during the last deglaciation: Evidence for catastropic sea-level rise and ice-sheet collapse. Geology, 23(1), p.4-8.

Bodin, Örjan, Beatrice Crona and Henrik Ernstson (2006) Social Network in Natural Resource Management: What is there to Learn from a Structural Perspective? Ecology and Society 11(2):r2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/resp2/

Boesch, D.F. (1999) The Role of Science in Ocean Governance. Ecological Economics 31, p.189-198.

Bowler, Peter J. (1992) The Norton History of the Environmental Sciences. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 634p.

151 Bradbury, R.H. and R.M. Seymour (2009) Coral reef science and the new commons. Coral Reefs 28, p. 831-837.

Briggs, S.V. (2006) Integrating Policy and Science in Natural Resources: Why So Difficult? Ecological Management & Restoration 7, p.37-39.

Broecker, Wallace S. (1991) The great ocean conveyor. Oceanography, 4, p.79-89.

Brown, Joan, Angela Colling, Dave Park, John Phillips, Dave Rothery, and Joan Wright (1989) Ocean Circulation. Walton Hall, U.K.: Open University Press. 238p.

Brown, Steven (1980) Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

–––––––––––– (2009) Personal Communication. Professor, Political Science, Kent State University. Q- Methodology list-serve administrator.

Bryant, Edward (2001) Tsunami: The Underrated Hazard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 350p.

Buddemeier, Robert W., Joan A. Kleypas and Richard B. Aronson (2004) Coral reefs & Global Climate Change: Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems. Report of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.. www.pewclimate.org.

Butler, John K. Jr. (1999) Trust Expectations, Information Sharing, Climate of Trust, and Negotiation Effectiveness and Efficiency. Group & Organization Management, 24(2), p.217-238.

Butos, William N. and Roger G. Koppl (1997) The Varieties of Subjectivism: Keynes and Hayek on Expectations. History of Political Economy, 29(2), p.327-359.

Butzer, Karl W. (1992) The American before and after 1492: An Introduction to Current Geographical Research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 82(3), The Americas before and after 1492: Current Geographical Research, p. 345-368.

Campbell, L.M. (2007) Local Conservation Practice and Global Discourse: A Political Ecology of Sea Turtle Conservation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97, p.313-334.

Carden, K. (2006) Bridging the Divide: The Role of Science in Species Conservation Law. Harvard Environmental Law Review 30, p.165-259.

Carr, Mark H., J.E. Neigel, J.A. Estes, S. Andelman, R.R. Warner, J.L. Largier (2003) Comparing Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystems: Implications for the Design of Coastal Marine Reserves. Ecological Applications 13(1), p.S90-S107.

Chaudhuri, K. N. (1985) Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 269p.

Christie, Donna R. and Richard G. Hildreth (1994) Coastal Ocean Management Law in a Nutshell, 3rd Ed., St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West. 446p.

152 Christie, Patrick (2005) Is Integrated Coastal Management Sustainable? Ocean & Coastal Management, 48, p.208-232.

Christie, Patrick, and A. T. White (2007) Best practices for improved governance of coral reef marine protected areas. Coral Reefs, 26, p.1047-1056

Cinner, J.E. (2007) Designing marine reserves to reflect local socioeconomic conditions: lessons from long- enduring customary management systems. Coral Reefs, 26, p.1035-1045.

Cleary, David (2006) The Questionable Effectiveness of Science Spending by International Conservation Organizations in the Tropics. Conservation Biology, 20(3), p.733-738.

Connell, J.H. (1997) Disturbance and recovery of coral assemblages. Coral Reefs, 16, Suppl. p.S101-S113.

Cordano, Mark, Irene Hanson Frieze, Kimberly M. Ellis (2004) Entangled Affiliations and Attitudes: An Analysis of the Influences on Environmental Policy Stakeholders’ Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, p.27-40

Costanza, Robert (2009) Science and Ecological Economics: Integrating of the Study of Humans and the Rest of Nature. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 29(5), p.358-373.

Costanza, Robert, Fransisco Andrade, Pala Antunes, Marjan van den Belt, Don Boesch, Dee Boersma, Fernando Catarino, Susan Hanna, Karin Limburg, Bobbi Low, Michael Molitor, Joao Gil Pereira, Steve Rayner, Rui Santos, James Wilson and Michael Young (1999) Ecological economics and sustainable governance of the oceans. Ecological Economics, 31, p.171-187.

Costanza, Robert, Ralph d’Arge, Rudolf de Groot, Stephen Farber, Monica Grasso, Bruce Hannon, Karin Limburg, Shahid Naeem, Robert V. O’Neil, Jose Paruelo, Robert G. Raskin, Paul Sutton, and Marjan van den Belt (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, p.253-260.

Cowen, R. K., C. B. Paris and A. Srinivasan (2006) Scaling of Connectivity in Marine Populations. Science, 311, p.522-527.

Crosby, Alfred W. Jr. (2003) The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Westport, CT.: Praeger. 283p.

Crossett, Kristen M., Thomas J. Culliton, Peter C. Wiley, Timothy R. Goodspeed (2004) Population Trends Along the Coastal United States: 1980-2008. NOAA National Ocean Service Management and Budget Office Special Projects, Coastal Trends Reports Series. September 2004. Accessed Dec. 2009.

Dana, James D. (1853) Coral Reefs and Islands. New York: G.P. Putnam. 143p.

–––––––––––– (1879) Corals and Coral Islands. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 406p.

153 Davis, William Morris (1928) The Coral Reef Problem. American Geographical Society Special Publication No. 9. New York: American Geographical Society. 596p.

Dayton, Paul K. and Enric Sala (2001) Natural History: the sense of wonder, creativity and progress in ecology. Scientia Marina, 65(Suppl.2), p.199-206. de Bont, Raf (2009) Between the Laboratory and the Deep Blue Sea: Space Issues in the Marine Stations of Naples and Wimereux. Social Studies of Science 39, p.199-227.

De Booy, Theodoor (1912) Lucayan Remains on the Caicos Islands, American Anthropologist, New Series, 14(1), p.81-105 de Las Casas, Bartolomé (2003) An Account, Much Abbreviated, of the Destruction of the Indies with related texts. [Franklin W. Knight ed] Translated by Andrew Hurley. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. 129p.

Deacon, Margaret (1971) Scientists and the Sea,1650-1900: A Study of Marine Science. London: Academic Press. 445p.

Dean, C. (2008) “The Preservation Predicament”, New York Times [Environment], January 29, 2008.

Delborne, Jason A. (2008) Transgenes and Transgressions: Scientific Dissent as Heterogenous Practice. Social Studies of Science 38, p.509-541.

Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari (1988) “14. 1440: The Smooth and the Striated” IN A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: Athlone. p.474-500.

Demeritt, David (2002) What Is the 'Social Construction of Nature'? A Typology and Sympathetic Critique. Progress in Human Geography, 26, p.767-790.

–––––––––––– (2006) Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist critique. Economy and Society 35(3), p.453-479.

DeSombre, Elizabeth R. (2006) Flagging Standards: Globalization and Environmental, Safety, and Labor Regulations at Sea. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 308p.

Diamond, Jared (2005) Collapse: How Societies Chose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking Press.

Dicken, Peter (2007) Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy. 5th Ed. New York: The Guilford Press. 599p.

Dietz, Thomas, Elinor Ostrom, Paul C. Stern (2003) The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science 302, p. 1907-1912.

Dimitrov, Radoslav S. (2002) Confronting Non-regimes: Science and International Coral Reef Policy. Journal of Environment & Development, 11(1), p.53-78.

–––––––––––– (2003) Knowledge, Power and Interests in Environmental Regime Formation. International Studies Quarterly, 47, p.123-150.

154 Dobbs, David (2005) Reef Madness: Charles Darwin, Alexander Agassiz, and the Meaning of Coral. New York: Pantheon, 306p.

Doel, Ronald E., Tanja J. Levin, and Mason K. Marker (2006) Extending modern cartography to the ocean depths: military patronage, Cold War priorities, and the Heezen-Tharp mapping project, 1952-1959. Journal of Historical Geography 32, p.605-626.

Dollar, S. J. and G. W. Tribble (1993) Recurrent storm disturbance and recovery: a long-term study of coral communities in Hawaii, Coral Reefs, 12(3-4), p.223-233.

Doney, Scott C., Victoria J. Fabry, Richard A. Feely, and Joan A. Kleypas (2009) Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem. Annual Review of Marine Science, 1, p.169-192.

Donner, Johnathan (2001) “Using Q-sorts in Participatory Processes: An Introduction to the Methodology.” Social Development Papers, Paper Number 36, June 2001.

Eden, Sally, Andrew Donaldson and Gordon Walker (2005) Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography. Area, 37.4, p.413-422.

Edgeworth David, T.W. (1904) Section IV. 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. Royal Society of London: London. p.40-60.

Edwards, Philip (1994) The Story of the Voyage: Sea-Narratives in Eighteenth-Century England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 244p.

Eldar, Ofer (2008) Vote-trading in International Institutions. The European Journal of International Law 19(1), p.3-41.

Emery, K. O. (1948) Submarine geology of Bikini Atoll: Geol. Soc. America Bull. 59, p.855-860.

FAO (2008). Fact Sheet: The international fish trade and world fisheries, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Farley, Joshua (2010) Conservation through the Economic Lens. Environmental Management 45, p.26-38.

Farber, Stephen, Robert Costanza, Daniel L. Childers, Jon Erikson, Katherine Gross, Morgan Grove, Charles S. Hopkinson, James Kahn, Stephanie Pincetl, Austin Troy, Paige Warren and Matthew Wilson (2006) Linking Ecology and Economics for Ecosystem Management. Bioscience 56(2), p. 121-133.

Fernández-Armesto, Felipe (2006) Pathfinders: A Global History of Exploration. New York: Norton. 428p.

Folke, Carl (2006) The Economic Perspective: Conservation against Development versus Conservation for Development. Conservation Biology, 20(3), p.686-688.

155 Foucault, Michel (1969) The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.

Franklin, Sarah (1995) Science as Culture, Cultures of Science. Annual Reviews of Anthropology, 24, p. 163-184.

Gardner, Toby A., Isabelle Côté,̂ Jennifer A. Gill, Alastair Grant and Andrew R. Watkinson (2003) Long- term region-wide declines in Caribbean corals. Science, 301(5635), p.958-960.

–––––––––––– (2005) Hurricanes and Caribbean Coral Reefs: Impacts, Recovery Patterns, and Role in Long-term Decline. Ecology, 86(1), p.174-184.

Ginsburg, Robert N. [ed.] (1994) 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. Miami, FL.

–––––––––––– (2009) Professor, Marine Geology and Geophysics, University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, personal communication.

Glynn, Peter (1991) Coral reef bleaching in the 1980s and possible connections with global warming. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 6(6), p.175-179.

Goethe, J.W. (1976) Faust: Part I. trans. by R. Jarrell. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Goreau, Thomas F. (1959) The Ecology of Jamaican Coral Reefs I. Species Composition and Zonation. Ecology, 40(1), p.67-90.

Gornitz, Vivien (1991) Global coastal hazards from the future sea level rise. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 89(4), p.379-398.

Grafton, R. Quentin, and Tom Kompas (2005) Uncertainty and the active adaptive management of marine reserves. Marine Policy, 29, p.471-479.

Halpern, Benjamin S. (2003) The Impact of Marine Reserves: Do Reserves Work and Does Reserve Size Matter? Ecological Applications 13(1), Supplement: The Science of Marine Reserves, p.117-137.

Halpern, Benjamin S., Shaun Walbridge, Kimberly A. Selkoe, Carrie V. Kappel, Fiorenza Micheli, Caterina D’Agrosa, John F. Bruno, Kenneth S. Casey, Colin Ebert, Helen E. Fox, Rod Fujita, Dennis Heinemann, Hunter S. Lenihan, Elizabeth M. P. Madin, Matthew T. Perry,1 Elizabeth R. Selig,6,12 Mark Spalding, Robert Steneck, and Reg Watson (2008) A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science 319, p.948-952.

Hansenclever, A., P. Mayer, and V. Rittberger (1997) Theories of International Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 248p.

Hardin, Garrett (1968) Tragedy of the Commons, Science, 162(3859), p.1243-1248.

Hargens, Lowell L. (2000) Using the Literature: Reference Networks, Reference Contexts, and the Social Structure of Scholarship. American Sociological Review 65(6), p.846-865.

156 Hillman, Richard S. and Thomas J. D’Agostino (2003) Understanding the Contemporary Caribbean. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 391p.

Hinchliffe, Steven (2007) Geographies of Nature: Societies, Environments, Ecologies. London: Sage. 224p.

Hinrichsen, Don (1998) Coastal Waters of the World: Trends, Threats, and Strategies. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P.J. Mumby, A.J. Hooten, R.S. Steneck, P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, C.D. Harvell, P.F. Sale, A.J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C.M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R.H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, and M.E. Hatziolos (2007) Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Science, 318(5857), p.1737-1742.

Houghten, Philip (1996) People of the Great Ocean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 292p.

Hourani, George F. (1995) Arab Seafaring. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 189p.

Hrebiniak, Lawrence G. and William F. Joyce (1985) Organizational Adaptation: Strategic Choice and Environmental Determinism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(3), p.336-349.

Hughes, Terence P., David R. Bellwood and Sean R. Connolly (2002) Biodiversity hotspots, centers of endemicity and the conservation of coral reefs. Ecology Letters 5, p.775-784.

Hughes, Terence P., A. H. Baird, D. R. Bellwood, M. Card, S. R. Connolly, C. Folke, R. Grosberg, O. Hoegh- Guldberg, J. B. C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J. M. Lough, P. Marshall, M. Nyström, S. R. Palumbi, J. M. Pandolfi, B. Rosen, J. Roughgarden (2003) Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs. Science 301(5635), p.929-933.

Innes, Judith E. and David E. Booher (1999) Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), p.412-423.

IUCN (2009) World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.1. . November 1, 2009.

IWCO (Independent World Commission on the Oceans) ((1998) The Ocean our Future: A Report of the Independent World Commission on the Oceans. [M. Soares, Chair]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 247p.

Jackson, Jeremy B. (1997) Reefs since Columbus Coral Reefs, 16, Suppl., p.S23-S32.

–––––––––––– (2001) What was Natural in the Coastal Oceans? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(10), p.5411-5418.

Jackson, Jeremy B., and Enric Sala (2001) Unnatural Oceans. Scientia Marina, 65 (Suppl.2), p.273-281.

157 Jackson, Jeremy B., Michael X. Kirby, Wolfgang H. Berger, Karen A. Bjorndal, Louis W. Botsford, Bruce J. Bourque, Roger H. Bradbury, Richard Cooke, Jon Erlandson, James A. Estes, Terence P. Hughes, Susan Kidwell, Carina B. Lange, Hunter S. Lenihan, John M. PandoLfi, Charles H. Peterson, Robert S. Steneck, Mia J. Tegner, Robert R. Warner (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems, Science, 293(5529), p.629-638.

Jacques, Peter (2006) Globalization and the World Ocean. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press. 189p.

Jeans, Peter D. (2004) Seafaring Lore & Legend: A Miscellany of Maritime Myth, Superstition, Fable and Fact. Camden, Main: International Marine/McGraw Hill, 370p.

Jentoft, S., T.C. Van Son. and M. Bjørkan (2007) Marine Protected Areas: A Governance System Analysis. Human Ecology, 35(5). p.611-622.

Johannes, R. E. (2001) Fishers’ Knowledge and Management: Differing Fundamentals in Artisenal and Industrial Fisheries. Putting Fishers’ Knowledge to Work: Conference Proceedings. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, August 27-30, 2001. p.15-19.

–––––––––––– (2002) The Renaissance of Community-Based Resource Management in Oceania. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 33, p.317-340.

Johnstone, James (1911) “Chapter III: The Factors of Distribution” in Life in the Sea. The Cambridge Manuals of Science and Literature No.27, Cambridge: The University Press. p.53-86.

Juda, Lawrence and Timothy Hennessey (2001) Governance Profiles and the Management of the Uses of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean Development & International Law 32, p.43-69.

Kelleher, G., and C. Reccia (1998) Lessons from marine protected areas around the world. Parks 8(2), p.1-4.

Keynes, J.M. (1921). A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan.

King, Tanya J. (2005) Crisis of Meanings: Divergent Experiences and Perceptions of the Marine Environment in Victoria, Australia. The Australian Journal of Anthropology 16(3), p.350-365.

Kirtland, K. A., D.E. Porter, C.L. Addy, M.J. Neet, J.E. Williams, P.A. Sharpe, et al. (2003) Environmental measures of physical activity supports: Perception versus reality. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24, p.323-331.

Kleypas, Joan A. and Mark Eakin (2007) Scientists’ perceptions of threats to coral reefs: Results of a survey of coral reef researchers. Bulletin of Marine Science, 80(2), p.419-436.

Kleypas, Joan A., Robert W. Buddemeier, David Archer, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Chris Landgon, Bradley N. Opdyke (1999) Geochemical Consequences of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Coral Reefs. Science, 284, p.118-120.

Knorr, Karin D. (1979) Tinkering toward Success: Prelude to a Theory of Scientific Practice. Theory and Society 8(3), p.347-376.

158 Knowlton, Nancy (2001) The Future of Coral Reefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98(10), p.5419-5425.

Krasner, Steven [ed.] (1983) International Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Krauss, Robert M. and Ezequiel Morsella (2006) “Communication and Conflict” IN [eds. Morton Deutsch, Peter T. Coleman and Colton Marcus]. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, 2nd Ed. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p.144-157

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 212p.

Kweon, Byoung-Suk, Christopher D. Ellis, Sang-Woo Lee, and George O. Rogers (2006) Large-Scale Environmental Knowledge: Investigating the Relationship Between Self-Reported and Objectively-Measured Physical Environments. Environment and Behavior 38(1), p.72-91.

Lachapelle, Paul R., Stephen F. McCool, Michael E. Patterson (2003) Barriers to Effective Natural Resource Planning in a “Messy” World. Society & Natural Resources, 16(6), p.473-490.

Ladd, H. S. and Earl Ingerson (1953) Drilling on Eniwetok Atoll, Marshall Islands. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 37, p.2257-2280.

Laferriere, Eric and Peter J. Stoett (1999) International Relations Theory and Ecological Thought, London: Routledge. 209p.

Lambert, David, Luciana Martins and Miles Ogborn (2006) Currents, visions and voyages: historical geographies of the sea. Journal of Historical Geography, 32, p.479-493.

Lang, Judith [ed] (2003) Status of Coral Reefs in the Western Atlantic: Results of Initial Surveys, Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) Program. Atoll Research Bulletin No.496. Washington DC: National Museum of National History, Smithsonian Institution. July 2003. 630p.

Latour , Bruno (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 274p.

–––––––––––– (1999) Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 336p.

–––––––––––– (2004) Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry, 30. p.225-248.

Latour, Bruno and Steven Woolgar (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Law, John (1986) “On the methods of long-distance control: vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India” in John Law [ed] Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?. London: Routledge. p.234-263.

159 –––––––––––– (1987) On the Social Explanation of Technical Change: The Case of the Portuguese Maritime Expansion. Technology and Culture 28(2), p.227-252.

Law, John and Annamarie Mol (2001) Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatialities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19, p.609-621.

Livingstone, David N. (2003) Putting Science in its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 234p.

–––––––––––– (2005) Text, talk and testimony: geographical reflections on scientific habits. British Journal for the History of Science 38, p.93-100.

Longhurst, Alan (1998) Ecological Geography Geography of the Sea. San Diego: Academic Press. 398p.

Lubchenco, Jane, Stephen R. Palumbi, Steven D. Gaines, and Sandy Andelman (2003) Plugging a Hole in the Ocean: The Emerging Science of Marine Reserves. Ecological Applications, 13(1) Supplement. p.S3-S7.

Macarthur, Robert H. and Edward O. Wilson (1967) The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 203p.

Maes, Frank (2008) The international legal framework for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 32, p. 797-810.

Marubini, F., Christine Ferrier-Pages, P. Furla, D. Allemand (2008) Coral calcification responds to seawater acidification: a working hypothesis towards a physiological mechanism. Coral Reefs 27, p.491-499.

Marx, Robert (1996) “1. The Early History of Diving” in Oceanography: Contemporary Readings in Ocean Sciences, 3rd Edition. (ed. R. Gordon Pirie). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.3-22.

Matsen, Brad (2009) Jacques Cousteau: The Sea King. New York: Pantheon. 320p.

May, Robert M. (2001) Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

McClanahan, Timothy R. (1999) Is There a Future for Coral Reef Parks in Poor Tropical Countries? Coral Reefs, 18, p.321-325.

McClanahan, Timothy R., Michael J. Marnane, Joshua E. Cinner, and William E. Kiene (2006) A Comparison of Marine Protected Areas and Alternative Approaches to Coral Reef Management. Current Biology 16, p.1408-1413.

McClure, Sarah B. (2007) Gender, Technology, and Evolution: Cultural Inheritance Theory and Prehistoric Potters in Valencia, Spain. American Antiquity, 72(3), p.485-508.

McCulloch, M. et al (2003) Coral record of increased sediment flux to the inner Great Barrier Reef since European settlement. Nature, 421, p.727-730.

160 McDonald, G.T. (1996) Planning as Sustainable Development. Journal Of Planning Education And Research 15, p.225-236.

McGranahan, Gordon, Deborah Balk, and Bridget Anderson (2007) The Rising Tide: Assessing the Risks of Climate Change and Human Settlements in Low Elevation Coastal Zones. Environment & Urbanization 19(1), p.17-37.

McGrath, Matt. (2009) “‘Freezer plan’ bid to save coral.” BBC News, October 25, 2009. Copenhagen. URL

McKeown, Bruce and Thomas, Dan (1988) Q Methodology. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 66. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc. 83p.

McNiven, Ian J. (2003) Saltwater People: Spiritscapes, Marine Rituals, and the Archaeology of Australian Indigenous Seascapes. World Archaeology, 35(3) Seascapes, p.329-349.

McWilliams, John P., Isabelle M. Coté, Jennifer A. Gill, William J. Sutherland, and Andrew R. Watkinson (2005) Accelerating Impacts of Temperature-Induced Coral Bleaching in the Caribbean. Ecology, 86(8), p.2055-2060.

Mikolajewicz, Uwe and Ernst Maier-Reimer (1994) Mixed boundary conditions in ocean general circulation models and their influence on the stability of the model’s conveyor belt. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans. 99(C11), p.22,633-22,644.

Milne, Nicole, Patrick Christie, Risa Oram, Rose-Liza Eisma, and Alan T. White (2003) Integrated Coastal Management Process Sustainability Reference Book. University of Washington School of Marine Affairs, Silliman University, and the Coastal Resource Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines. 50p.

Milner, Richard (2009) Darwin’s Universe: Evolution from A to Z. Berkeley: University of California Press. 496p.

Miner, Ralph W. (1925) The Reef Builders of the Tropic Seas. Natural History, 25(3), May-June, p.250-260.

Mintz, Sidney W. (1985) Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: Penguin. 274p.

Monahan, Torin and Jill A. Fisher (2010) Benefits of ‘observer effects’: lessons from the field. Qualitative Research, 10(3), p.357-376.

Mora, Camilo, Serge Andréfouët, Mark J. Costello, Christine Kranenburg, Audrey Rollo, John Veron, Kevin J. Gaston, Ransom A. Myers (2006) Coral Reefs and the Global Network of Protected Areas. Science, 312, p.1750-1751.

Mumby, Peter J. and Robert S. Steneck (2008) Coral reef management and conservation in light of rapidly evolving ecological paradigms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23(10), p.255-263.

Murdoch, T.J.T. and R. B. Aronson (1999) Scale-dependent spatial variability of coral assemblages along the Florida Reef Tract. Coral Reefs, 18, p.341-351.

161 Neumann, Roderick P. (1998) Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.

–––––––––––– (2005) Making Political Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 213p.

Nichols, K. (1999) Coming to Terms with “Integrated Coastal Management”: Problems of Meaning and Method in a New Arena of Resource Regulation. The Professional Geographer 51(3), p.388-399.

Nutch, Frank (1996) Gadgets, Gizmos, and Instruments: Science for the Tinkering. Science, Technology & Human Values 21(2), p.214-228.

O’Brien, Karen L. and Robin M. Leichencko (2003) Winners and Losers in the Context of Global Change. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 93(1), p.89-103.

O’Conner, Martin [ed.] (1994) Is Capitalism Sustainable? Political Economy and the Politics of Ecology. New York: Guilford Press. 283p.

Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood (1989): World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. 341p.

Pandolfi, John M., Roger H. Bradbury, Enric Sala, Terence P. Hughes, Karen A. Bjorndal, Richard G. Cooke, Deborah McArdle, Loren McClenachan, Marah J. H. Newman, Gustavo Paredes, Robert R. Warner, Jeremy B. C. Jackson (2003) Global Trajectories of the Long-Term Decline of Coral Reef Ecosystems. Science, 301, p.955-958.

Peet, Richard (1985) The Social Origins of Environmental Determinism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 75(3), p.309-333.

Peñaflor, E.L., W.J. Skirving, A.E. Strong, S.F. Heron and L.T. David (2009) Sea-surface temperature and thermal stress in the Coral Triangle over the past two decades. Coral Reefs, 28, p.841-850.

Peterson, R.G., L. Stramma, and G. Kortum (1996) Early concepts and charts of ocean circulation. Progress in Oceanography, 37, p.1-115.

Pew Research Center For the People & The Press (2009b) Modest Support for “Cap and Trade” Policy: Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming. , 23p.

–––––––––––– (2009a) Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago. 98p.

Pittock, A. Barrie (1999) Coral Reefs and Environmental Change: Adaptation to What? American Zoologist, 39, p.10-29.

Platzman, George (1968) The Rossby Wave. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 94(401), p. 225-248.

162 Porter, Philip W. and Eric S. Sheppard (1998) A World of Difference: Society, Nature, Development. New York: The Guilford Press. 602p.

Potter, Robert B., David Barker, Dennis Conway and Thomas Klak (2004) The Contemporary Caribbean. London: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 497p.

Powell, Richard C. (2007) Geographies of science: histories, localities, practices, futures. Progress in Human Geography 31(3), p.309-329.

Powell, Richard C. and Alexander Vasudevan (2007) Commentary: Geographies of Experiment. Environment and Planning A 39, p.1790-1793.

Pomeranz, Kenneth and Steven Topik (1999) The World that Trade Created: Society, Culture, and the World Economy 1400 to the Present. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. 256p.

Pretty, Jules and David Smith (2004) Social Capital in Biodiversity Conservation and Management. Conservation Biology 18(3), p.631-638.

Pyenson, Lewis and Susan Sheets-Pyenson (1999) Servants of Nature: A History of Scientific Institutions, Enterprises and Sensibilities. London: HarperCollins Publishers. 496p.

Ransom, Kevin P. and Stephen C. Mangi (2010) Valuing Recreational Benefits of Coral Reefs: The Case of Mombasa Marine National Park and Reserve, Kenya. Environmental Management 45, p.145-154.

Reason, P. (1988) “Introduction” IN Human Inquiry in Action: Developments in New Paradigm Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rediker, Marcus (2004) Villains of all Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age. Boston: Beacon Press. 240p.

Reidy, Michael S. (2008) Tides of History: Ocean Science and Her Majesty’s Navy. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. 387p.

Riegl, Bernhard, Andy Bruckner, Steve L. Coles, Philip Renaud and Richard Dodge (2009) Threats and Conservation in an Era of Global Change. The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology 2009: Annals of the N.Y. Academy of Sciences 1162, p.136-186.

Ritchie, Kimberly (2008) Manager, Marine Microbiology Program, Mote Marine Laboratory, Summerland Key, FL. personal communication.

Richardson, Bonham C. (1992) The Caribbean in the Wider World, 1492-1992: A Regional Geography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 235p.

Robbins, Paul and Rob Krueger (1999) Beyond Bias? The Promise and Limits of Q Method in Human Geography. Professional Geographer, 52(4), p.636-648.

Roberts, Callum M. (1997) Connectivity and management of Caribbean coral reefs. Science 278, p. 1454-1457.

163 Roberts, Callum M., Colin J. McClean, John E. N. Veron, Julie P. Hawkins, Gerald R. Allen, Don E. McAllister, Cristina G. Mittermeier, Frederick W. Schueler, Mark Spalding, Fred Wells, Carly Vynne and Timothy B. Werner (2002) Marine Biodiversity Hotspots and Conservation Priorities for Tropical Reefs. Science, 295, p.1280-1284.

Rogers, Caroline S. (1993) Hurricanes and anchors: Preliminary results from the National Park Service Regional Reef Assessment Program IN Proceedings of the Colloquium on Global Aspects of Coral Reefs: Health, Hazards and History [R. Ginsburg, ed]. University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Miami. FL, p.214-219.

Rothery, Dave and John Wright (1998) Ocean Basins: Their Structure and Evolution. 2nd Edition. The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann/The Open University. 185p.

Rouse, Irving (1992) The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus. New Haven: Yale University Press. 224p.

Routledge, Paul (2002) “Resisting and Reshaping Destructive Development: Social Movements and Globalizing Networks” in [R.J. Johnston, Peter J. Taylor and Michael J. Watts, eds.] Geographies of Global Change. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. p. 311-327.

Roux, Dirk J., Kevin H. Rogers, Harry C. Biggs, Peter J. Ashton and Anne Sergeant (2006) Bridging the Science-Management Divide: Moving from Unidirectional Knowledge Transfer to Knowledge Interfacing and Sharing. Ecology and Society 11(1), art.4.

Rozwadowski, Helen (2005) Fathoming the Ocean: The Discovery and Exploration of the Deep Sea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Russ, Garry R. and Dirk C. Zeller (2003) From Mare Liberum to Mare Reservarum. Marine Policy, 27. p.75-78.

Russell, F.S. and C.M. Yonge (1963) The Seas: Our Knowledge of Life in the Sea and How it is Gained, 3rd Ed. London and New York: Frederick Warne & Co. Ltd.

Rydin, Yvonne (2003) Conflict, Consensus, and Rationality in Environmental Planning: An Institutional Discourse Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 200p.

Sale, Kirkpatrick (1990) The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy. New York: Knopf. 453p.

Sapp, Janet (1999) What is Natural?: Coral Reef Crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 304p.

Scott, James C. (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 445p.

Selig, Elizabeth and John F. Bruno (2010) A Global Analysis of the Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in Preventing Coral Loss. PLoS ONE 5(2): e9278.

164 Semple, Ellen Churchill (1909) The Operation of Geographic Factors in History. Bulletin of the American Geographical Society, 41(7), p.422-439.

Shapin, Steven (1998) Placing the view from nowhere: historical and sociological problems in the location of science. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 23(1), p.5-12.

Sharma, K.K. (1999) Tourism and Culture. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons. 272p.

Shaw, Gareth and Allan M. Williams (2002) Critical Issues in Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, 2nd Ed. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers. 371p.

Shin, Eugene (2010) Professor of Integrative Biology, University of South Florida. personal communication.

Smith, James L. (2009) World Oil: Market or Mayhem? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 145-164.

Smith, Melanie K. (2009) Issues in Cultural Tourism, 2nd Ed. New York: Routlege. 251p.

Sobel, Dava (1995) Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time. New York: Penguin Books, Inc., 184p.

Sollas, W. J. (1904) Section I. Narrative of the Expedition in 1896. 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. Royal Society of London: London. p.1-28.

Somerfield, P.J., W.C. Jaap, K.R. Clarke, M. Callahan, K.Hackett, J. Porter, M. Lybolt, C. Tsokos and G. Yanev (2008) Changes in coral reef communities among the Florida Keys, 1996-2003. Coral Reefs, 27, p.951-965.

Souter, D.W. & Linden, O. (2000) The Health and Future of Coral Reef Systems. Ocean & Coastal Management, 43, p.657-688.

Spalding, Mark, Corinna Ravilious and Edmund P. Green (2001) World Atlas of Coral Reefs. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Berkeley: University of California Press. 424p.

Spooner, Frank C. (1983) Risks at Sea: Amsterdam Insurance and Maritime Europe, 1766-1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 306p.

St. Martin, Kevin (2009) Toward a Cartography of the Commons: Constituting the Political and Economic Possibilities of Place. The Professional Geographer 61(4), p.493-507.

Steinberg, Philip E. (1999) Navigating to Multiple Horizons: Towards a Geography of Ocean-Space. Professional Geographer 51(3), p.366-375.

–––––––––––– (2001) Social Construction of the Oceans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 239p.

Stephenson, William (1935) Technique of factor analysis. Nature, 136(297).

165 –––––––––––– (1953) The Study of Behavior: Q-Technique and its Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stoddard, David R. (1973) Coral Reefs: The Last Two Million Years. Geography 58, p.313-323.

–––––––––––– (1986) On Geography and its History. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 334p.

Swaab, Roderick I., Tom Postmes, Peter Neijens, Marius H. Kiers and Adrie C.M. Dumay (2002) Multiparty Negotiation Support: The Role of Visualization’s Influence on the Development of Shared Mental Models. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), p.129-150.

Taylor, Peter J. (2000) “World Systems Analysis” in The Dictionary of Human Geography, 4th Ed. [RJ.Johnston, D.Gregory, G. Pratt and M.Watts, eds.], Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, Inc., p.901.

Thocher, Adam (2009) Association of American Geographers, Director, Membership & Business Operations, personal communication.

Thompson, Leigh, Janice Nadler, and Robert B. Lount Jr. (2006) “Judgmental Biases in Conflict Resolution and How to Overcome Them” IN [eds. Morton Deutsch, Peter T. Coleman and Colton Marcus]. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, 2nd Ed. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/ John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p.243-267

Thomson, Sir C. Wyville (1877) The Voyage of the 'Challenger'. The Atlantic: A Preliminary Account of the General Results of The Exploring Voyage of H.M.S. 'Challenger' During the Year 1873 and the Early Part of the Year 1876. Vol 1. London: Macmillan and Co. 424p.

Trist, Carolyn R. (2000) Changes in the Sea: The Political Ecology of Marine Management in Soufriere, St. Lucia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Geography, University of California, Berkeley.

VanCleve, F. Brie, Thomas Leshine, Terrie Klinger, Charles Simenstad (2006) An Evaluation of the Influence of Natural Science in Regional-Scale Restoration Projects. Environmental Management 37 (3), p.367-379.

Varinlioğlu, Günder (2007) Living in a Marginal Environment: Rural Habitat and Landscape in Southeastern Isauria. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 61, p.287-317.

Vaughan, Thomas Wayland (1910) A contribution to the geologic history of the Floridian Plateau. Papers from the Tortugas Laboratory, Carnegie Institute of Washington Pub 133, p.99-185.

–––––––––––– (1914) 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. Carnegie Institute of Washington Pub No. 182. p.57-67

–––––––––––– (1917) Corals and the Formation of Coral Reefs. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution. p.189-276.

Vellega, Adalberto (2001) Sustainable Ocean Governance: A geographical perspective. London: Routledge. 274p.

166 Walley, Christine J. (2004) Rough Waters: Nature and Development in an East African Marine Park. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 308p.

Weins, Harold J. (1959) Atoll Development and Morphology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 49(1), p.31-54.

West, Paige, Dan Brockington (2006) An Anthropological Perspective on Some Unexpected Consequences of Protected Areas, Conservation Biology 20(3), p. 609-616.

Williams, Eric (1994) Capitalism and Slavery. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 307p.

Wilson, Edward O. (1998) Consilience: the unity of knowledge. New York: A.Knopf.

Wilson, Samuel (1997) The Indigenous People of the Caribbean. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 266p.

Wittgenstein, L. (1971) Philosophical Investigations. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.

World Resources Institute, n.d. URL Accessed: March, 2010.

Worm, B., E.B. Barbier, N. Beaumont, J.E. Duffy, C.Folke, B.S. Halpern, J.B.C. Jackson, H.K. Lotze, F. Micheli, S.R. Palumbi, E. Sala, K.A. Selkoe, J.J. Stachowicz and R. Watson (2006) Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science, 314, p.787-790.

Yamamoto, Lilian and Miguel Esteban (2010) Vanishing Island States and Sovereignty. Ocean & Coastal Management 53(1), p.1-9.

Yearley, Steven (1990) Researching the Precambrian Biosphere: Constructing Knowledge and Shaping the Organization of Scientific Work. Social Studies of Science 20(2), p.313-332.

Yonge, C.M. (1930) A Year on the Great Barrier Reef. New York: G.P. Putnam and Sons.

Zane, Brian (2009) Board Member, Board of Directors, Montego Bay Marine Park, Montego Bay, Jamaica. Personal Communication, October 2009.

167 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Bärbel Bischof, or Barbie as she’s known to her friends, was born to German immigrants in New York on April 12, 1968. Soon after, her family moved to the Isle of Palms, South Carolina, a six mile-long barrier island just north of Charleston, where she developed her passion for the coastal and marine environment. Spending most of her free time in the water or on the beach sparked her interest in how these systems change over time, especially after Hurricane Hugo in 1989 which completely reshaped the island and destroyed her home. She attended Wando High School in Mt. Pleasant and the John F. Kennedy School in Berlin, Germany, returning to Wando to graduate. She then attended the College of Charleston, where she earned her undergraduate degree from the Department of Geology, completing her senior thesis on sediment transport of ebb tidal deltas on the northern end of the Isle of Palms. Upon graduation, accepted a state job with the SC Department of Water Resources. Bored with driving around and checking wells around the state, she soon began her Master of Science at the University of Miami (UM), Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (RSMAS) in the Division of Marine Geology and Geophysics. Her thesis work was an interdisciplinary project involving geologists and biologists from both UM and the National Park Service, looking at post-Hurricane Andrew destruction and recovery of the mangrove ecosystem of the Everglades National Park. While conducting work in the mangroves, she also did some work in the Bahamas (Andros, Bimini, Exumas) and the Florida reef tract with her committee member, Robert Ginsburg. She traveled extensively to the Caribbean islands, being fortunate to visit over twenty-six different islands in the Greater and Lesser Antilles, where she began to understand that social systems play a large role in what we think about the environment, particularly regarding fishing and reef use. During her education at RSMAS, she also travelled to South Africa, Zanzibar, and the Cape Verde Islands, and began taking a keen interest in how exploitation patterns differ between cultures, how management systems are culturally structured, and ultimately realized that geography matters. Combined with her continuing education at RSMAS, she developed a keen interest in the reefs and their growth morphologies as they are affected by environmental factors and exploitation patterns. However, she also noticed that what she was reading about reefs in peer-reviewed publications rarely correlated with what she would see in the field, and what was put out in mass media about ocean environments was consistently poorly translated from the original findings. While completing her MSc. work, and with the goal of rectifying this interpretive discrepancy, she applied to New York University’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication for the Science and Environmental Reporting Program scholarship, which she was awarded and so moved to NYC in 1995. After earning her MA in Journalism and an Academic Certificate in Science Reporting from NYU in 1996, she worked at Discover magazine, The New York Times, and Natural History magazine as science editor for several years, and also freelanced for Encyclopaedia Britannica, Oryx Press, Science and other

168 non-fiction publications. Discontent with the business of mass media and the manner in which advertisement has significant control over the way in which truth is framed, and always wanting to earn her Ph.D., she decided to plan a course of action. She returned to Miami as a visiting scientist for Robert Ginsburg, where she helped him with the development of the Atlantic-Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment protocol while beginning classes in International Relations and Geography at Florida International University. There she stumbled on Phil Steinberg’s book Social Construction of the Ocean and sought him out as advisor for her Ph.D., thus ending up at Florida State University’s Department of Geography. While in Tallahassee completing her courses, she received a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant and moved back to Miami to be close to the reef environment and social networks that study them. Despite the variety of disciplines of her degrees, her prime motivation has always been to understand the marine environment and how it changes as we exploit and use it, which continues to be the motivating force behind her interests, both professional and personal.

169