scholarly journals Metaphors for marine conservation and management: The good, the bad, and the inaccurate

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
OCTO

A new paper in Marine Policy discusses the importance of effective metaphors for marine conservation and policy. Metaphors are figures of speech that describe something in terms more familiar to listeners, e.g., “a blanket of snow”. Good metaphors help shape understanding of something and can mobilize appropriate action. Poorly-chosen metaphors are, at best, ineffective at mobilizing support for the intended cause, and, at worst, counterproductive because they lead to oppositional behaviors or decrease the credibility of the messenger. To be a good metaphor for marine conservation or management (or any other purpose really), a metaphor must be mapped onto something that is: 1) familiar, 2) appropriately evocative/relatable for a particular culture, and 3) scientifically accurate. Appropriate metaphors are especially important in marine conservation and management because the oceans seem remote to many people, and the scale and scope of threats to ocean ecosystems can be difficult to understand and relate to.

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 383-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay Aylesworth ◽  
Ratanawaree Phoonsawat ◽  
Pholphisin Suvanachai ◽  
Amanda C. J. Vincent

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. S. Galil ◽  
R. Danovaro ◽  
S. B. S. Rothman ◽  
R. Gevili ◽  
M. Goren

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaili Johri ◽  
Maria Carnevale ◽  
Lindsay Porter ◽  
Anna Zivian ◽  
Melina Kourantidou ◽  
...  

Marine conservation sciences have traditionally been, and remain, non-diverse work environments with many barriers to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI). These barriers disproportionately affect entry of early career scientists and practitioners and limit the success of marine conservation professionals from under-represented, marginalized, and overburdened groups. These groups specifically include women, LGBTQ+, Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). However, the issues also arise from the global North/South and East/West divide with under-representation of scientists from the South and East in the global marine conservation and science arena. Persisting inequities in conservation, along with a lack of inclusiveness and diversity, also limit opportunities for innovation, cross-cultural knowledge exchange, and effective implementation of conservation and management policies. As part of its mandate to increase diversity and promote inclusion of underrepresented groups, the Diversity and Inclusion committee of the Society for Conservation Biology-Marine Section (SCB Marine) organized a JEDI focus group at the Sixth International Marine Conservation Congress (IMCC6) which was held virtually. The focus group included a portion of the global cohort of IMCC6 attendees who identified issues affecting JEDI in marine conservation and explored pathways to address those issues. Therefore, the barriers and pathways identified here focus on issues pertinent to participants’ global regions and experiences. Several barriers to just, equitable, diverse, and inclusive conservation science and practice were identified. Examples included limited participation of under-represented minorities (URM) in research networks, editorial biases against URM, limited professional development and engagement opportunities for URM and non-English speakers, barriers to inclusion of women, LGBTQ+, and sensory impaired individuals, and financial barriers to inclusion of URM in all aspects of marine conservation and research. In the current policy brief, we explore these barriers, assess how they limit progress in marine conservation research and practice, and seek to identify initiatives for improvements. We expect the initiatives discussed here to advances practices rooted in principles of JEDI, within SCB Marine and, the broader conservation community. The recommendations and perspectives herein broadly apply to conservation science and practice, and are critical to effective and sustainable conservation and management outcomes.


Genes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben J. Novak ◽  
Devaughn Fraser ◽  
Thomas H. Maloney

Although oceans provide critical ecosystem services and support the most abundant populations on earth, the extent of damage impacting oceans and the diversity of strategies to protect them is disconcertingly, and disproportionately, understudied. While conventional modes of conservation have made strides in mitigating impacts of human activities on ocean ecosystems, those strategies alone cannot completely stem the tide of mounting threats. Biotechnology and genomic research should be harnessed and developed within conservation frameworks to foster the persistence of viable ocean ecosystems. This document distills the results of a targeted survey, the Ocean Genomics Horizon Scan, which assessed opportunities to bring novel genetic rescue tools to marine conservation. From this Horizon Scan, we have identified how novel approaches from synthetic biology and genomics can alleviate major marine threats. While ethical frameworks for biotechnological interventions are necessary for effective and responsible practice, here we primarily assessed technological and social factors directly affecting technical development and deployment of biotechnology interventions for marine conservation. Genetic insight can greatly enhance established conservation methods, but the severity of many threats may demand genomic intervention. While intervention is controversial, for many marine areas the cost of inaction is too high to allow controversy to be a barrier to conserving viable ecosystems. Here, we offer a set of recommendations for engagement and program development to deploy genetic rescue safely and responsibly.


2017 ◽  
Vol 74 (8) ◽  
pp. 2223-2238
Author(s):  
Henrike Rambo ◽  
Vanessa Stelzenmüller ◽  
Simon P. R. Greenstreet ◽  
Christian Möllmann

Abstract Predictive maps of biodiversity patterns are pivotal to marine conservation and marine spatial planning alike, yet mapping of biodiversity indicators at the community-level is neither straightforward nor well-tested empirically. Two principle approaches exist. A direct approach involves calculation of indices for each sample, followed by interpolation to estimate values at unsampled locations. An indirect approach first interpolates individual species distributions and then determines indices based on the stacked distribution maps. We compared the appropriateness of both approaches to provide management-relevant information by mapping the distribution of demersal fish biodiversity in the German North Sea Exclusive Economic Zone using species richness, Hill’s N1 and a novel traits-based community sensitivity to fishing index (CSI). To substitute zero-inflated species with up to 95% zeros in the sample data, we applied each species’ mean abundance value as a flat surface. Spatial patterns between indicators varied, but certain hot- and cold-spots were revealed, which, under current legislation, might suggest that the present level of biodiversity protection is insufficient. Despite both approaches generating similar main patterns, the direct approach predicted a narrower range of index values and only depicted the most dominant patterns. Contrary to that the indirect approach better reproduced the variability in the data, along with additional information on species distributions and a theoretical advantage pertaining to sampling issues. Although the choice over the mapping approach is context dependent, for our study area featuring a community with relatively few species, we consider the indirect approach to provide the more reliable information for implementing marine environmental legislation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 283 (1844) ◽  
pp. 20161635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel D. Cavanagh ◽  
Stefanie Broszeit ◽  
Graham M. Pilling ◽  
Susie M. Grant ◽  
Eugene J. Murphy ◽  
...  

Valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) is widely recognized as a useful, though often controversial, approach to conservation and management. However, its use in the marine environment, hence evidence of its efficacy, lags behind that in terrestrial ecosystems. This largely reflects key challenges to marine conservation and management such as the practical difficulties in studying the ocean, complex governance issues and the historically-rooted separation of biodiversity conservation and resource management. Given these challenges together with the accelerating loss of marine biodiversity (and threats to the ES that this biodiversity supports), we ask whether valuation efforts for marine ecosystems are appropriate and effective. We compare three contrasting systems: the tropical Pacific, Southern Ocean and UK coastal seas. In doing so, we reveal a diversity in valuation approaches with different rates of progress and success. We also find a tendency to focus on specific ES (often the harvested species) rather than biodiversity. In light of our findings, we present a new conceptual view of valuation that should ideally be considered in decision-making. Accounting for the critical relationships between biodiversity and ES, together with an understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning, will enable the wider implications of marine conservation and management decisions to be evaluated. We recommend embedding valuation within existing management structures, rather than treating it as an alternative or additional mechanism. However, we caution that its uptake and efficacy will be compromised without the ability to develop and share best practice across regions.


2020 ◽  
pp. 159-182
Author(s):  
Laurie J. Raymundo ◽  
Colleen A. Burge ◽  
Joleah B. Lamb

While disease is a part of all natural systems, emerging marine diseases are on the rise and many are exacerbated by anthropogenic stressors. Marine and terrestrial environments are fundamentally different, requiring a suite of new approaches to understanding and managing the host–pathogen–environment relationship. Promising strategies include establishing marine protected areas, developing forecasting tools, and using natural ecosystem filters to control pathogens. Aquaculture is one measurable avenue by which natural systems come into direct contact with managed systems, often with negative consequences. This chapter presents examples where pathogens, invasive species, and degraded water quality are associated with impacts on adjacent natural systems. While effective regulatory procedures exist, international transport presents a challenge to implementation and needs special attention. Ecological restoration, a growing management science, would benefit from consideration of disease processes, such as genotyping to determine differences in natural resistance that could be used to guide selective breeding efforts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document