4.7 Article

What natural and social scientists need from each other for effective marine environmental assessment: Insights from collaborative research on the Tomakomai CCS Demonstration Project

Journal

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
Volume 159, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111520

Keywords

Impact assessment; Interdisciplinarity; Marine social science; Sub-seabed carbon dioxide storage

Funding

  1. ESRCAHRC UK-Japan SSH Connections Grant 'Building Social Resilience to Environmental Change in Marginalised Coastal Communities' [ES/S013296/1]
  2. Marine Ecology Research Institute's Young Researcher Fund (Onchi)
  3. ESRC [ES/S013296/1, ES/S013296/2] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We propose actions to guide collaboration between 'natural' and 'social' science disciplines in marine environmental issues. Despite enthusiasm for interdisciplinarity on environmental issues, institutional and disciplinary barriers remain for interdisciplinary working in practice. This paper explores what natural and social scientists need from each other for more effective impact assessment in the marine environment. We reflect on collaboration between natural- (especially marine biology) and social scientists (especially environmental sociology) researching the Tomakomai CCS Demonstration Project in Japan; including subsequent expansion of the research team and wider evaluation of project outcomes. We identify two areas of mutual support: community and stakeholder engagement on marine monitoring; and identification of points in regulatory/policy processes where qualitative findings may gain traction alongside quantitative results. We suggest interdisciplinary collaboration for marine environmental research could be helped by making time to learn from each other within projects; and by working together more closely in the field.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available