Future Scenarios as a Research Tool: Investigating Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation Options and Outcomes for the Great

Abstract Climate change is a significant future driver of change in coastal social-ecological systems. Our knowledge of impacts, adaptation options, and possible outcomes for marine environments and coastal industries is expanding, but remains limited and uncertain. Alternative scenarios are a way to explore potential futures under a range of conditions. We developed four alternative future scenarios for the Great Barrier Reef and its fishing and tourism industries positing moderate and more extreme (2-3°C above pre-industrial temperatures) warming for 2050 and contrasting 'limited' and 'ideal' ecological and social adaptation. We presented these scenarios to representatives of key stakeholder groups to assess the perceived viability of different social adaptation options to deliver desirable outcomes under varied contexts

The effectiveness of recreational only fishing areas in North Queensland estuaries for reducing conflict and improving recreational catches\ud \ud

Allocation of fisheries resources to recreational fishers via Recreational Only Fishing\ud Areas (ROFAs) is becoming increasingly common in all developed countries,\ud particularly in coastal areas. ROFAs are often introduced with the expectation that such\ud action will segregate competing recreational and commercial fishers (by excluding\ud commercial fishers) and thus resolve apparent conflict over previously shared fisheries\ud resources. ROFAs also have the expected benefit of improving recreational catch\ud quality for previously shared species. Whether these benefits are realised, however, is\ud unknown because little monitoring of outcomes occurs post-ROFA implementation.\ud \ud Using questionnaires of recreational and commercial fishers and collection of\ud fishery-dependent and fishery-independent recreational catch data, this study\ud investigated the outcomes of ROFAs in north Queensland estuaries. Specifically, the\ud study examined: the nature and source of conflict between recreational and\ud commercial fishers competing for shared barramundi stocks; whether current estuarine\ud ROFAs are successful in segregating and reducing conflict between these sectors; and\ud whether ROFAs result in improved recreational catches of barramundi.\ud \ud Results from the questionnaires show that while recreational fishers (anglers)\ud have high expectations of ROFAs and would like more implemented, most anglers are\ud unaware of locations of current ROFAs, and do not deliberately choose to use them.\ud Consequently, current ROFAs are not increasing segregation of recreational and\ud commercial fishers. Moreover, contact between the recreational and commercial\ud sectors appears to already be limited due to time segregation (commercial netting is\ud not allowed in estuaries on weekends) and the finding that most commercial fishers\ud avoid areas heavily occupied by recreational fishers. Thus the conflict between these\ud sectors does not appear to be due to high levels of direct contact.\ud \ud Investigations of the perceptions of fishers from both sectors via the\ud questionnaire program revealed that the underlying conflict between commercial and\ud recreational fishers in north Queensland appears to be based on mutual\ud misperceptions of the competing sector’s operations and impacts, particularly from\ud anglers. Such misperceptions lead to blame (i.e. anglers blame commercial fishers) for\ud negative outcomes such as (real or perceived) catch declines. ROFAs do not address\ud this problem of mutual misperceptions of fishers and are therefore unlikely to resolve\ud this conflict in the long-term. Increased communication between sectors and education\ud from fisheries managers and researchers and stakeholder representatives regarding\ud each sector’s operations and impacts on the resource is more likely to reduce conflict. Such actions should reduce misperceptions, adjusting attitudes of fishers to be more\ud positive towards the competing sector, and hence reducing conflict.\ud \ud Despite anecdotal claims and expectations of improved recreational catches of\ud barramundi in ROFAs compared to open estuaries in north Queensland, fishery dependent\ud (from charter fishing records, voluntary recreational catch logbooks, and\ud personal fisher time series records) and fishery-independent (in the form of structured\ud fishing surveys) recreational catch data collected though this study did not reveal\ud improvements in catch per unit effort or success rates for barramundi in ROFAs.\ud Results did show that the average size of barramundi caught in ROFAs was larger than\ud those caught in the open estuaries, though the reason for this difference in size\ud structure is unknown. Further investigation into why recreational catch benefits are not\ud being realised and what this may mean for barramundi populations is required. Results\ud imply natural variation may be more influential on barramundi populations than fishing,\ud or that recreational fishing is highly variable and not a good indicator of stock structure\ud and abundance.\ud \ud Overall, results of this project suggest current estuarine ROFAs in north\ud Queensland are not resulting in the expected benefits: i.e. they are not reducing conflict\ud between recreational and commercial fishers or resulting in improved recreational\ud catches of barramundi. This study highlights the importance of determining the source\ud of conflict, and collecting quality time-series recreational catch data before and after\ud ROFA implementation. Future studies should aim to examine both the costs and\ud expected benefits of ROFAs to determine whether benefits outweigh the costs\ud involved. Costs and benefits should be examined from a multi-disciplinary approach,\ud including social, ecological and economic aspects

The effectiveness of recreational only fishing areas in North Queensland estuaries for reducing conflict and improving recreational catches

Allocation of fisheries resources to recreational fishers via Recreational Only Fishing Areas (ROFAs) is becoming increasingly common in all developed countries, particularly in coastal areas. ROFAs are often introduced with the expectation that such action will segregate competing recreational and commercial fishers (by excluding commercial fishers) and thus resolve apparent conflict over previously shared fisheries resources. ROFAs also have the expected benefit of improving recreational catch quality for previously shared species. Whether these benefits are realised, however, is unknown because little monitoring of outcomes occurs post-ROFA implementation. Using questionnaires of recreational and commercial fishers and collection of fishery-dependent and fishery-independent recreational catch data, this study investigated the outcomes of ROFAs in north Queensland estuaries. Specifically, the study examined: the nature and source of conflict between recreational and commercial fishers competing for shared barramundi stocks; whether current estuarine ROFAs are successful in segregating and reducing conflict between these sectors; and whether ROFAs result in improved recreational catches of barramundi. Results from the questionnaires show that while recreational fishers (anglers) have high expectations of ROFAs and would like more implemented, most anglers are unaware of locations of current ROFAs, and do not deliberately choose to use them. Consequently, current ROFAs are not increasing segregation of recreational and commercial fishers. Moreover, contact between the recreational and commercial sectors appears to already be limited due to time segregation (commercial netting is not allowed in estuaries on weekends) and the finding that most commercial fishers avoid areas heavily occupied by recreational fishers. Thus the conflict between these sectors does not appear to be due to high levels of direct contact. Investigations of the perceptions of fishers from both sectors via the questionnaire program revealed that the underlying conflict between commercial and recreational fishers in north Queensland appears to be based on mutual misperceptions of the competing sector’s operations and impacts, particularly from anglers. Such misperceptions lead to blame (i.e. anglers blame commercial fishers) for negative outcomes such as (real or perceived) catch declines. ROFAs do not address this problem of mutual misperceptions of fishers and are therefore unlikely to resolve this conflict in the long-term. Increased communication between sectors and education from fisheries managers and researchers and stakeholder representatives regarding each sector’s operations and impacts on the resource is more likely to reduce conflict. Such actions should reduce misperceptions, adjusting attitudes of fishers to be more positive towards the competing sector, and hence reducing conflict. Despite anecdotal claims and expectations of improved recreational catches of barramundi in ROFAs compared to open estuaries in north Queensland, fishery dependent (from charter fishing records, voluntary recreational catch logbooks, and personal fisher time series records) and fishery-independent (in the form of structured fishing surveys) recreational catch data collected though this study did not reveal improvements in catch per unit effort or success rates for barramundi in ROFAs. Results did show that the average size of barramundi caught in ROFAs was larger than those caught in the open estuaries, though the reason for this difference in size structure is unknown. Further investigation into why recreational catch benefits are not being realised and what this may mean for barramundi populations is required. Results imply natural variation may be more influential on barramundi populations than fishing, or that recreational fishing is highly variable and not a good indicator of stock structure and abundance. Overall, results of this project suggest current estuarine ROFAs in north Queensland are not resulting in the expected benefits: i.e. they are not reducing conflict between recreational and commercial fishers or resulting in improved recreational catches of barramundi. This study highlights the importance of determining the source of conflict, and collecting quality time-series recreational catch data before and after ROFA implementation. Future studies should aim to examine both the costs and expected benefits of ROFAs to determine whether benefits outweigh the costs involved. Costs and benefits should be examined from a multi-disciplinary approach, including social, ecological and economic aspects

Perceived benefits and costs of Recreational Only Fishing Areas to the recreational and commercial estuarine fishery within north Queensland

Recreational Only Fishing Areas (ROFAs) (i.e., areas where commercial fishing is excluded, leaving sole fishing access to recreational fishers) are often implemented to reduce conflict between recreational and commercial fishing sectors, and to enhance recreational fishing quality. This study explored recreational and commercial fishers' perceptions of estuarine ROFAs in north Queensland, Australia with the aim of understanding whether desired socio-economic benefits are realized. Recreational and commercial fishers in the study area believed that competition between the sectors was a problem; however, only recreational fishers suggested increased segregation of the sectors via ROFAs as a solution. Recreational fishers were largely unaware of the location of current ROFAs in the study area and therefore did not preferentially use these areas compared to areas open to commercial fishing. Likewise recreational fishers did not deliberately avoid areas frequented by commercial fishers, and the presence or absence of commercial fishing was not a major factor influencing recreational fishing site choice. Further, while recreational fishers expected to catch more fish in areas where commercial fishing does not occur, they had not noticed an improvement in catches in more recently formed ROFAs. Collectively, these results suggest that the existing ROFAs in the study area are not currently providing the expected benefits for fishers, and that adding more ROFAs would be unlikely to reduce conflict between commercial and recreational fishers. The effectiveness of the ROFAs may be improved if recreational fishers are better informed about their location. Further investigation is required to understand why recreational fishers do not choose to use current ROFAS, the cause of conflict between the recreational and commercial sectors, and whether expected catch benefits of ROFAs are being realized

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

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

Social resilience and commercial fishers' responses to management changes in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Understanding how social resilience influences resource users' responses to policy change is important for ensuring the sustainability of social–ecological systems and resource-dependent communities. We use the conceptualization and operationalization of social resilience proposed by Marshall and Marshall (2007) to investigate how resilience level influenced commercial fishers' perceptions about and adaptation to the 2004 rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. We conducted face-to-face interviews with 114 commercial and charter fishers to measure their social resilience level and their responses and adaptation strategies to the 2004 zoning plan. Fishers with higher resilience were more likely to believe that the zoning plan was necessary, more likely to be supportive of the plan, and more likely to have adapted their fishing business and fishing activity to the plan than were fishers with lower social resilience. High-resilience fishers were also less likely to perceive negative impacts of the plan on their fishing business, less likely to have negative attitudes toward the consultation process used to develop and implement the plan, and less likely to have applied for financial compensation under the structural adjustment program. Results confirm the utility of the social resilience construct for identifying fishers who are likely to be vulnerable to changes, and those who are struggling to cope with change events. We conclude that managing for social resilience in the GBR would aid in the design and implementation of policies that minimize the impacts on resource users and lead to more inclusive and sustainable management, but that further research is necessary to better understand social resilience, how it can be fostered and sustained, and how it can be effectively incorporated into management

Balancing artificial light at night with turtle conservation? Coastal community engagement with light-glow reduction

Artificial lighting is a significant threat to biodiversity. Although efforts to reduce lighting are crucial for species' conservation efforts, management is challenging because light at night is integral to modern society and light use is increasing with population and economic growth. The development and evaluation of appropriate light management strategies will require positive public support, and a comprehensive understanding of public engagement with light pollution. This is the first study to examine public engagement with reducing light at night for the protection of a threatened species. A community campaign to reduce artificial light use was initiated in 2008 to protect marine turtles at a globally significant nesting beach. Semi-structured questionnaires assessed community engagement with light-glow reduction, using an existing theoretical constraints framework. Despite high levels of cognitive and affective engagement(knowledge and concern), behavioural engagement(action) with light reduction in this community was limited. Community perceptions of light reduction were dominated by 'uncertainty and scepticism' and 'externalizing responsibility/blame', implying that behavioural engagement in this community may be increased by addressing these widely-held perceptions using modified campaign materials and/or strategic legislation. Further refinement of the theoretical constraints framework would better guide future empirical and conceptual research to improve understanding of public engagement with critical environmental issues

Evaluating the threat of IUU fishing to sea turtles in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia using expert elicitation

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is a pervasive issue that affects economic, social, regulatory and environmental systems in all ocean basins. Research on the ecological impacts of IUU fishing has been relatively underrepresented, with minimal investigation into how IUU fishing may negatively affect populations of marine megafauna, such as sea turtles. To address this knowledge gap and identify priority areas for future research and management, we evaluated IUU fishing as a threat to a marine megafauna species group (sea turtles) in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia region (IOSEA). We designed and distributed an online survey to experts in the fields of sea turtle research, marine conservation, fisheries management, consulting and NGOs throughout IOSEA. Our results reveal that IUU fishing is likely to have potentially significant impacts on sea turtle populations in IOSEA through targeted exploitation and international wildlife trafficking. Addressing domestic IUU fishing needs to be actioned as a high priority within the study area, as does the issue of patrolling maritime borders to deter illegal cross-border transhipment. There is a demonstrable need to strengthen MCS and employ regional coordination to help build capacity in less-developed nations. Future research requirements include evaluating IUU fishing as a threat to sea turtles and other threatened marine species at multiple scales, further investigation into market forces throughout IOSEA, and examination of potential barriers to implementing management solutions. We advocate for introducing sea turtle-specific measures into IUU fishing mitigation strategies to help maximize the opportunity for positive outcomes in creating healthy ecosystems and stable communities

Recreational fishers’ attitudes towards the 2004 rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

With the marine environment under increasing threat from multiple sources, the ability of managers to generate support from stakeholders will be vital for the success of conservation initiatives. In 2004, a new zoning plan for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park increased no-take areas from 4.5% to 33% of the total Park area. The aims of this study were to measure recreational fishers’ level of support for the plan and understand how they form attitudes towards conservation initiatives in the Park. A survey of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park recreational fishers conducted three years after implementation of the new zoning plan revealed that 68% of fishers believed that, in general, rezoning the Marine Park was a good idea, whereas 57% supported the actual zoning plan that was implemented. A majority of fishers believed that rezoning the Marine Park was necessary, that the new zoning plan had high conservation value, and that the plan had little impact on their recreational fishing activity. However, most fishers\ud had low to moderate satisfaction with the programme used to consult the public throughout the rezoning process. Logistic regression models revealed a strong relationship between level of support for the plan and fishers’ perceptions about the necessity of the plan and its conservation value, the adequacy of the consultation process, and the impact of the plan on their fishing activity. Results indicate that recreational fishers can be strong supporters of conservation initiatives in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park if these initiatives are consistent with their values, and if efforts are made to engage them in the decision making process. These results will enhance the ability of managers to generate support from the recreational fishing community for conservation initiatives in marine environments

A Case Study of Managers' Place Meanings and Environmental Governance of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia

[Extract] The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) Survey of Managers Final Technical Report presents the findings from a social science research project designed to inform environmental planning and management. This project serves as preliminary dissertation research for the primary investigator and informs a larger study of human-environment interactions in the context of the GBRMP. The findings explore managers' perceptions of places within the GBRMP and the environmental governance system that managers exist within. This report is designed to improve the information, services, and products that managers of the GBRMP provide to their public constituents