4.1 Article

Digging Deep: Managing Social and Policy Dimensions of Geoduck Aquaculture Conflict in Puget Sound, Washington

期刊

COASTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 73-89

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2017.1252628

关键词

aquaculture; best available science; best management practices; coastal communities; conflict; resource management; social-ecological systems; stakeholder perception

资金

  1. Washington Sea Grant
  2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Shellfish aquaculture can result in conflicts among stakeholders who perceive impacts and tradeoffs regarding sense of place, aesthetic, recreational, economic, and ecological values. Pacific geoduck clams (Panopea generosa Gould 1850) are grown in intertidal plots using gear- and labor-intensive techniques that result in a high value export product. A confluence of issues has resulted in on-going social and legal tensions surrounding geoduck aquaculture in southern Puget Sound, Washington (WA), USA. Using interviews and document analysis, we explored stakeholder perspectives and policy issues related to geoduck aquaculture in southern Puget Sound. Twenty-three stakeholders were interviewed, including state agency employees, representatives of the aquaculture industry, nongovernmental organizations, landowners, a tribal member, and an academic. Nine state hearings board decisions on challenges to aquaculture permits were also analyzed. Stakeholders articulated a variety of perspectives regarding aesthetic, recreational, land-use, ecological, political, regulatory, and economic aspects of geoduck aquaculture activities. Hearings board cases addressed similar issues (aesthetic, ecological, and recreational), as well as challenges to restrictions on aquaculture. Potential strategies for managing this conflict include emphasizing best management practices, identifying and incorporating best available science, joint fact-finding approaches, and initiating and improving communication among all stakeholders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据