Can policy perception influence social resilience to policy change?

Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 216–227

Can policy perception influence social resilience to policy change? N.A. Marshall a,b,c,∗ a

School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James Cook University, Townsville 4811, Australia b Cooperative Research Centre for Reef Research, Townsville 4811, Australia c CSIRO, Townsville, Australia Received 9 January 2007; received in revised form 1 June 2007; accepted 7 June 2007

Abstract This paper addresses the question of whether policy perception can erode or enhance the ability of commercial fishers to be resilient to changes in fisheries policy. An understanding of the way that fishers perceive resource policies provides fisheries managers with the opportunity to refine policy design and delivery so as to better protect system resilience. Policy perception is assessed by asking commercial fishers how they perceive their level of involvement in the policy decision-making process and interpret equity, the likely socio-economic impacts, conservation effectiveness and the rate of implementation (of generic policies). Social resilience to policy change is examined by assessing a fisher’s (i) perception of risk associated with change, (ii) ability to plan, learn and reorganise, (iii) ability to cope, and (iv) level of interest in change. One hundred commercial fishers in five coastal communities were quantitatively and qualitatively surveyed. A negative perception of policy was found to significantly and adversely influence the behaviour and emotional response of commercial fishers, which, as described here, influences their resilience. For policy perception to be positive and resilience to be enhanced, fishers need to be meaningfully involved in the decision-making process, change needs to be implemented at an appropriate rate, and effort is required to ensure that equity, anticipated impacts and conservation effectiveness are positively interpreted. This knowledge can assist in the development of fisheries management strategies aimed at maintaining and enhancing socio-ecological resilience. Crown Copyright © 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Social resilience; Institutional change; Perception; Policy; Fisheries management; Community involvement; Governance

1. Introduction The success of fishery management depends upon the adequacy and the breadth of the science behind it, the effects that it has on fish and people, and how well the rules are followed and enforced (Wilson et al., 1994; McCay, 1996). However, it is often not clear what the consequences of a change in fisheries policy might be: what trade-offs will be required economically, socially, politically and culturally. What is to be sustained, for how long, and in what manner, whom is to benefit, and how the benefits will be distributed are also rarely made explicit. Furthermore, it is often not known why fishers are resistant to management strategies designed to sustain the very resource that they are dependent upon. How fishers interact and relate to the fisheries resource; how they best incorporate change into their

∗

Correspondence address: CSIRO, Davies Laboratory, PMB Aitkenvale, Queensland 4814, Australia. Tel.: +61 7 4753 8537; fax: +61 7 4753 8600. E-mail address: [email protected].

lives; and how policies can be best designed so as to maximise the probability that compliance will be high are critical questions for the effective management of fisheries resources. As such, management strategies are often implemented with high uncertainty as to the likely associated social and environmental outcomes. Evidence is rapidly accumulating to show that the incorporation of social knowledge into the management process can significantly assist in the design of policies that not only protect a natural resource but also cause less conflict, inspire higher compliance and minimise the social costs associated with protecting the resource (Fricke, 1985; Lane and Stephenson, 1995; McPhee and Loveday, 2000; Shivlani and Milon, 2000). That is, social knowledge can assist to maintain resilience of the socio-ecological system. This paper addresses the critically important question of whether policy perception can erode or enhance the ability of commercial fishers to be resilient to changes in fisheries policy (Folke et al., 2002; Carpenter and Brock, 2004). Resilience is a concept that is emerging as an important concept to guide and support more inclusive and effective approaches to the man-

0165-7836/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2007.06.008

N.A. Marshall / Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 216–227

agement of combined social and ecological (socio-ecological) systems (Ludwig et al., 1997; Berkes and Folke, 1998; Levin et al., 1998). Resilient systems are flexible, prepared for change and uncertainty, and are essential for the prosperous development of society (Hughes et al., 2005). Individual responses to policy change are important in driving and understanding resilience at higher scales (Meffe, 2001a,b; Adger et al., 2002; Manfredo and Dayer, 2004). Recent work aimed at understanding and operationalising the likely response to policy change for individual fishers in North Queensland has identified a number of key features that can be used to characterise resilience: (i) the perception of risk associated with change; (ii) the ability to plan, learn and reorganise; (iii) the perception of the ability to cope; and (iv) the level of interest in change (Marshall et al., in press; Marshall and Marshall, 2007). These characteristics describe the likely ability of a fisher to cope with institutional change and adapt. For example, some commercial fishers may poorly assess their vulnerability to institutional or policy change on the basis of their financial situation, their ability to secure employment elsewhere or their ability to remain competitive within the industry (i.e. and perceive risk as to high). Others may develop creative and novel solutions to deal with changing conditions and be enthusiastic about remaining viable within the industry (i.e. and reorganise). Other fishers may have experienced marital distress as a result of previous change events, for example, and believe that their current relationship (or other) emotional or financial circumstances would be unable to endure further change (i.e. and be unable to cope), whilst other fishers who have higher flexibility and fewer constraints may keenly await change for its advantages (i.e. and have a high interest in change). This paper aims to identify some of the conditions under which resilience might be influenced and looks at, in particular, the effect of policy perception (Adger, 2000; Adger et al., 2002). Policy perception is a description of how resource users assess, appreciate and experience prospective policy change. It can be influenced by equity (Healey and Hennessey, 1998; Jentoft et al., 1998; Stedman, 1999), anticipation of socio-economic impacts (Freudenberg and Keating, 1985; Gramling and Freudenberg, 1992), the level of involvement in the decision-making process (Arnstein, 1969; Coakes, 1998), the confidence in conservation effectiveness (McCay and Jentoft, 1996) and the rate at which policy change is implemented (Parsons, 1966). Resource policy design can be optimised using an understanding of the influences on policy perception. Using the commercial fishing industry in North Queensland as a case study, I test the hypothesis that; how fishers assess, appreciate and experience prospective policy change can influence their ability to cope and adapt to policy change. 1.1. The commercial fishing industry in North Queensland The commercial fishing industry in North Queensland provides an especially relevant case study to identify influences on social resilience and apply the concept. Like other fisheries around the world (Hanna, 1996; McCay, 1996; McCay and Jentoft, 1996; Bailey, 1997), the industry and fisheries

217

resource is reaching a ‘critical’ stage where the ecological and social resilience of the system is threatened (Holling and Meffe, 1996a,b; Costanza et al., 2000). The status of several fisheries stocks within Queensland are currently listed as threatened (www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb), and there is strong public pressure to further substantially reduce, if not remove altogether, commercial fishing within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Subsequently, the fishing industry has been at the centre of public debate over the sustainability of its activities for many years. During this time, there have been numerous attempts to curb associated environmental impacts and ensure environmental sustainability through the implementation of policies that regulate the use of, or access to, the fisheries resource (Hughey, 2000). Recently, for example, under the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1994, the Fisheries (East Coast Trawl) Management Plan was developed to ensure that the trawl fishery is managed in a sustainable manner (“The Trawl Plan 2002”). Policy changes were introduced such as a license buy-back scheme, unit allocations based on previous fishing effort and boat size, expensive penalties, gear modifications (such as turtle-exclusion devices and by-catch reduction devices), and fees for unit trade, license transfer and the upgrading of vessels. The industry consists of trawl fishers, line fishers (“reef-line fishers”), crabbers and netters, all of which were targeted in the current study. Many fishers hold a multiply endorsed license which means that a line fisher, for instance, may also trawl or net (Fenton and Marshall, 2001). 2. Methods A quantitative survey was developed to assess fishers’ perceptions of policy change in terms of their (i) involvement in the decision-making process, (ii) interpretation of equity, likely socio-economic impacts and conservation effectiveness, and (iii) perception of the rate of implementation (see Table 1). Survey questions and statements were also included to measure the social resilience of commercial fishers to policy change including their (i) perception of risk associated with change, (ii) ability to plan, learn and reorganise, (iii) perception of the ability to cope, and (iv) level of interest in change (see Table 2). Responses for both scales were required in the form of a 4point Likert scale; ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. A scoping study was undertaken with 15 fishers to ground the survey within the context of the fishing industry in North Queensland. The pilot survey was pre-tested for its readability, ambiguity and variability in responses. The final version of the survey was administered to 100 commercial fishers and their families in five coastal communities in North Queensland, Australia: Cooktown, Port Douglas, Innisfail, Townsville and Bowen (Fig. 1). These communities represented a span of population sizes, ranging from 1800 for Cooktown to 91,000 for Townsville. Commercial fishers represented less than 2% of each community. The surveys were voluntary and received a 100% response rate. Between 46 and 68% of the commercial fishing industry within each community was sampled. A reliability analysis was used to ensure that only those statements that contributed to the internal consistency of the scale

218

N.A. Marshall / Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 216–227

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the sample of 100 commercial fishers Mean Social characteristics Age Age started fishing Number of family members that fish Years in community Work outside of industry (a) Education—highest level (i) Education—apprenticeship (a) Education—business courses (a) ‘Could you ever get work in this area again?’ (a) With spouse or not (a) (n) Age of spouse Education of spouse (i) TAFE education of spouse (a) Involvement of spouse in business (a) (o) Hours worked in the business (spouse) Frequency of fishing with spouse (j) Spouse with alternative income (a) (p) Spouse ever worked elsewhere (a) Spouse confident of obtaining employment (a) Known spouse as anything else (a) Spouse: years lived in community Number of dependents

52 20.97 1.08 22.99 1.85 3.84 1.52 1.42 1.3 1.76 55.76 3.98 1.42 1.55 27.9 2.35 1.52 1.78 1.97 1.49 22 1.29

S.E. 1.13 0.87 0.14 1.56 0.03 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.043 1.4 0.19 0.06 0.06 4.76 0.19 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.26 1.78 0.15

Mode 59 (f) 16 (f) 0 15 2 4 2 1 1 2 51 3 1 2 6 (f) 3 2 2 2 1 20 1

Business characteristics Number of family members involved in business (k) Employed as a skipper (a) Number of family in business Number of people in business Business turnover (b) Own boat (a) Number of boats owned Length of largest boat Any debt remaining (a) Amount debt remaining, $ Loan secured by home (c) %Income from fishing Take home income (d) Own home (e)

2.19 1.18 2.19 3.89 3.46 1.10 1.67 11.42 1.3 77K 2.23 83.80 2.48 1.72

0.17 0.04 0.17 0.91 0.23 0.07 0.11 0.45 0.05 18K 0.09 2.45 0.19 0.08

Resource dependency Number of species targeted Days fished Average trip length

3.83 152.72 16.96

0.28 7.77 3.85

1 150 (f) 5

2.78 1.21 1.80 2.25 1.24

0.11 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.04

4 1 2 3 1

Perception of policy Regularity of attendance at meetings (g) Member of an LMAC (a) Know someone on an LMAC? (a) Relationship with QSIA branch chair (h) Ever been on the dole (a)

2 1 2 0 2 1 1 10 1 0 3 100 1 1

Range 51 41 6 74 1 6 1 1 1 2 78 6 1 1 99 3 1 1 2 1 61 11 8 1 8 64 6 5 5 20.23 1 700K 2 100 5 3 11 300 249 3 1 1 2 1

(a) 1 = no, 2 = yes; (b) 1 = $0–50K, 2 = $51–100K, 3 = $101–150K, 4 = $151–350K, 5 = $251–300K, 6 = $301–350K, 7 = $351K+; (c) 1 = no, 2 = yes, 3 = do not have business loan; (d) 1 = $0–30K, 2 = $31–40K, 3 = $41–50K, 4 = $51–60K, 5 = $61–70K, 6 = $71K+; (e) 1 = own home, 2 = mortgage on home, 3 = rent; (f) several modes exist. Smallest is shown (g) 1 = 0, 2 = 1–2 per year, 3 = 3–5 per year, 4 = 6+ per year; (h) 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = very well; (i) 1 = yr7, 2 = yr8, 3 = yr9, 4 = yr10, 5 = yr11, 6 = yr12, 7 = university; (j) 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often; (k) including ‘self’; (m) percentage of fishers with at least one family member who fishes = 66%; (n) % of fishers with a wife = 75%; (o) % of wives involved in the business = 55.8%; (p) % of wives with additional income = 51.9%.

for policy perception and social resilience were included (Zeller and Carmines, 1980). Scales with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.7 or greater were accepted as reliable. Policy perception and social resilience were quantified for each commercial fisher using factor scores derived from a principal components analysis (PCA) (Zeller and Carmines, 1980; Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). A

factor score is a composite measure (like ‘mean’) that reflects the relative weighting of each statement in producing the scale. To assess the influence of policy perception on each of the four dimensions of social resilience, a Pearson correlation was conducted between the factor scores for each variable. An alpha level of 0.05 was used to assess the significance of each relation-

N.A. Marshall / Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 216–227

219

Table 2 One-way ANOVAs to test the effect of various social variables on each policy variable Involvement

With wife Age Education Worked elsewhere Possible to get new job Debt level Business size Experience in industry

Influence

Interpretation

ss

d.f.

p

ss

d.f.

p

ss

d.f.

p

17.887 117.867 6.827 2.984 9.389 7.583 7.834 126.610

1 41 6 1 1 4 4 42

0.034 0.958 0.954 0.390 0.126 0.734 0.746 0.944

0.176 33.431 11.895 2.605 .021 6.357 1.000 39.333

1 41 6 1 1 4 4 42

0.705 0.323 0.130 0.143 0.897 0.280 0.946 0.940

0.000 93.738 10.848 .421 8.610 8.675 10.950 99.383

1 41 6 1 1 4 4 42

0.993 0.271 0.559 0.659 0.044 0.443 0.292 0.163

Involvement, influence and interpretation are calculated as the mean score of statements as presented in Table 1. Note—ss: sum of squares; d.f.: degrees of freedom; p: probability value (where p < 0.05 is significant.

whether or not fishers were married. Married fishers were more positive about their involvement.

ship (Underwood, 1997). The relationship was also examined graphically for construal accuracy. Qualitative interviews were undertaken during the same period as the quantitative surveys and on the same 100 respondents. The goal of this phase of the study was to gain as much information as possible on the mechanistic linkages between social resilience and policy perception. Data were also used to validate the results from the quantitative survey and to ensure that quantitative data were interpreted as accurately as possible. Interviews were semi-structured in style and usually lasted 2–3 h (Carroll and Lee, 1990). Qualitative data were analysed using Content Analysis (Stemler, 2001).

Twelve survey statements reliably quantified the level and quality of involvement in the decision-making process (Table 3). Seven statements were used to assess how policies were interpreted for conservation effectiveness and equity and one statement was used to measure the appropriateness of the rate of implementation (Table 3). All relevant survey statements contributed to the internal consistency of the scale.

3. Results

3.3. Developing the scale for social resilience

3.1. Contextual information

Twelve statements in the survey to assess social resilience, out of 17 (Table 4), reliably assessed a commercial fisher’s response to hypothetical policy change (Marshall and Marshall, 2007). Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics and the results of the reliability analysis. These 12 statements formed the basis of the measure for social resilience in this study.

Descriptive statistics for the commercial fishing industry is provided in Table 1. In general, the average fisher was 52 years old. They entered the industry in their early twenties, lived within their community for 23 years and had a family member (such as a father, brother, uncle or grandfather) that also fished. They had a low level of skill outside of the industry even though 85% of fishers worked outside the industry at some stage. The average fisher was self-employed, without employees and without additional income. Mean turnover was around AUS$ 101–150K per annum; and mean income was between $30 and 40,000. Some 76% of fishers were married and 50% of wives had an additional income. Wives were confident that they could earn an additional income if the need arose. Nearly half of the wives had never known their husbands to be anything other than a fisher. Most fishing families owned their own home. Most fishers targeted one seafood species on fishing trips that were typically 5 days long. The average fisher spent approximately 150 days out at sea last year (Table 1). Interpretation, involvement and influence were not significantly influenced by social parameters such as age, education, experience within the industry or outside, debt, or business size (Table 2). Results did show, however, that the extent to which fishers responded positively to their level of involvement in the decision-making process was significantly influenced by

3.2. Developing the scale for policy perception

3.4. Measuring policy perception Results of the PCA suggested that all survey responses quantifying policy involvement, interpretation and implementation were highly correlated and as a single combined factor explained 55% of the variation. The factor scores derived during the PCA were used as the (relative) measure of how positively generic policies were perceived for each individual. 3.5. The influence of policy perception on social resilience A fisher’s perception of policy change was significantly and positively correlated with two dimensions of social resilience: the assessment of risk (Pearson correlation: 0.239) and the perception of the ability to cope (Pearson correlation: 0.344). A fisher’s ability to plan and reorganise and their level of interest in change were not influenced by their perception of policy change. Fishers that favourably perceived the rate at which policies are implemented (as measured by; “new policy changes are

220

N.A. Marshall / Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 216–227

Fig. 1. A map of Queensland showing the location of the five communities used in the study and the reference points of Cairns and Brisbane.

introduced with plenty of time to get organised”) were more likely to confidently assess their ability to plan and reorganise, as well as assess their ability to cope, compared to fishers that negatively interpreted the implementation rate (Fig. 2). Fishers that pessimistically interpreted the impacts of policy change (as

measured by; “I feel as if I am being made to leave the industry as quickly as possible”) were more likely to be doubtful in their assessment of risk associated with change and their ability to cope (Fig. 3). Fishers that positively assessed the effectiveness of policies in meeting conservation goals (as measured by; “I think

N.A. Marshall / Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 216–227

221

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and reliability analysis on survey statements designed to quantify the perception of policy change Survey items

Mean

S.D.

Item-total correlation

α if item deleted

Involvement in the decision-making process, α = 0.701 How regularly do you attend fisheries meetings each year?a Are you a member of a Local Management Advisory Committee (LMAC)?b Do you know anyone sitting on a Management Advisory Committee?b How well do you know the QSIA branch chair-person for your area?c There have been too many changes in the industry over recent yearsd Changes imposed are introduced in the best interests of the industryd I feel that I am unable to influence the decisions made by managersd I like to get involved in with the political side of the fishing industry I have a good relationship with fisheries managers Public meetings are a useful way to receive information about proposed changes Implementing change is difficult and I think that it is done as well as possible I feel I have personally been able to influence fisheries decisions in the past

1.217 1.797 2.782 2.289 1.869 1.797 1.608 2.405 2.449 2.695 1.869 1.623

0.415 0.405 1.082 0.729 0.968 0.850 0.911 1.167 1.036 1.061 0.906 0.841

0.362 0.272 0.338 0.292 0.268 0.223 0.340 0.446 0.348 0.157 0.241 0.333

0.630 0.638 0.619 0.629 0.632 0.639 0.619 0.593 0.616 0.656 0.637 0.621

Interpretation of policy change, α = 0.700 Big fishing companies will be the only ones able to survive future changesd Queensland has the best managed fishery in the world GBRMPA have a good vision for the future of the Marine Park QFS have a good vision for the future of the industry I usually agree with the reasons that changes are introduced I feel like I am being made to leave the industry as quickly as possibled I would say that I have been significantly affected by previous changesd

1.678 1.896 1.781 1.517 2.137 1.781 1.655

0.882 0.976 0.841 0.804 0.942 0.932 0.886

0.192 0.332 0.477 0.520 0.394 0.569 0.388

0.715 0.684 0.645 0.636 0.666 0.616 0.667

Rate of implementation New changes in the industry are introduced with plenty of time to get organised

1.585

0.781

Statements were measured on a 4-point scale ranging from 1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: agree to 4: strongly agree unless otherwise specified. Note: S.D. is standard deviation. a Measured on a 4-point scale ranging from 0, 1–2, 3−, 6+ per year. b Measured on a 2-point scale (1: no and 2: yes). c Measured on a 3-point scale from not at all, a little, very well. d The data for negative worded statements were reversed prior to analysis.

Table 4 Descriptive statistics and reliability analysis on survey statements designed to quantify the response to policy change (social resilience) Survey items

Meana

S.D.

Item-total correlation

α if item deleted

Social resilience (α = 0.689) (α with five items deleted = 0.701) I am confident that I could get work elsewhere if I needed to I would be nervous trying something elseb I am more likely to adapt to change compared to other fishers I know I am confident things will turn out well regardless of changes I have many career options available to me if I decide to no longer be a fisher Every time there is a new change I plan a way to make it work for me If there are any more changes I will not survive much longerb I can cope with small changes in industry I am too young to retire and too old to find work elsewhereb I have planned for my financial security I am not competitive enough to survive much longerb I am interested in learning new skills outside of the industry I would find it very difficult working for someone elsec Change is normal part of our every day lifec I would like to start up a business 1 day doing something other than fishingc I believe that the future will look after itselfc I am always thinking of new and better ways to improve my fishing businessc

1.98 1.89 2.68 2.09 1.66 2.86 2.18 3.01 1.66 3.06 2.86 2.32 1.89 2.85 1.97 1.64 2.97

1.06 0.97 0.90 1.08 0.91 0.94 1.00 0.85 0.88 0.98 1.15 1.1 1.02 0.84 0.95 0.85 0.94

0.46 0.45 0.47 0.43 0.41 0.68 0.32 −0.05 0.23 0.20 0.13 0.17 0.56 0.28 0.30 0.02 0.27

0.653 0.656 0.656 0.656 0.662 0.666 0.670 0.676 0.680 0.684 0.684 0.685 0.685 0.686 0.693 0.700 0.706

Statements were measured on a 4-point scale ranging from 1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: agree to 4: strongly agree unless otherwise specified. a Statements were measured on a 4-point scale ranging from 1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: agree to 4: strongly agree. b The data for negative worded statements were reversed prior to analysis. c The five statements that were removed from the scale were those with the largest Cronbach’s alpha if deleted.

222

N.A. Marshall / Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 216–227

Fig. 2. Direction of influence of policy implementation (using the example; “new policy changes are introduced with plenty of time to get organised”) with (i) the assessment of risk and (ii) the ability to cope.

Fig. 3. Direction of influence of the interpretation of anticipatory impacts (using the example; “I feel as if I am being made to leave the industry as quickly as possible”) with (i) the assessment of risk and (ii) the ability to cope.

that Queensland has the best managed fishery in the world”) assessed risk poorly yet positively assessed their ability to cope (Fig. 4). That is, whilst fishers who positively interpreted policy change perceived they were better able to cope, they still had

significant concerns for the future well-being of the industry and their place within it. On the one hand, fishers that had a high level of involvement in the fisheries decision-making process (as measured

Fig. 4. Direction of influence of interpretation of the ability of policy change to effectively meet conservation goals (using the example; “I think that Queensland has the best managed fishery in the world”) with (i) the assessment of risk and (ii) the ability to cope.

N.A. Marshall / Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 216–227

223

Fig. 5. Direction of influence of the quantity of involvement in the decision-making process (using the example; “How regularly do you attend meetings each year?”) with (i) the assessment of risk and (ii) the ability to cope.

by; “How regularly do you attend meetings each year?”) negatively assessed risk and positively assessed their ability to cope (Fig. 5). This result suggests that whilst fishers involved in the process confidently assess their ability to cope, their concerns for the fishery and its future are amplified or supported by their involvement in the process. On the other hand, fishers that felt as if they are meaningfully involved in the decisionmaking process (as measured by; “I feel that I am able to influence managers decisions”) were more likely to respond positively in their assessment of risk and in their ability to cope (Fig. 6). 3.6. Qualitative results Qualitative data revealed the key mechanisms explaining how social resilience could be influenced by policy perception. Qualitative data are used here to support interpretation of the quantitative results. A major observation was the finding that involvement and ‘meaningful’ involvement in the decisionmaking process had a variable influence on social resilience. For example, many fishers believed that they were involved in the

decision-making process because they attended fisheries meetings in the local community. However, this type of involvement meant that fishers were in direct contact with resource managers in what was commonly referred to as, “the battle zone”. Fisheries managers were mostly described as a “bunch of bullies” and in some instances as na¨ıve. Fishers also referred to the patronising behaviour of managers who believed that they were, “in charge of rescuing the Great Barrier Reef” from the activities of commercial fishers. Fishers that experienced the “battle-zone” believed that they had little control over the direction of their working future. They often felt helpless and that their involvement in the decision-making process was irrelevant. They felt that they did not have the opportunity to contribute to the decisions that were being made about their working future, did not feel respected and did not trust that decisions were being made in the best interest of the industry as a whole. Many fishers exposed to the ‘battle-zone’ felt uncertain and insecure about their future, which made them agitated and frustrated. Other fishers were apathetic and hesitant. In contrast, some fishers were involved in the decision-making process through formal advisory committees, rather than public meetings. These fishers described the

Fig. 6. Direction of influence of the quality of involvement in the decision-making process (using the example; “I feel that I am able to influence manager’s decisions”) with (i) the assessment of risk and (ii) the ability to cope.

224

N.A. Marshall / Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 216–227

process as more ‘meaningful’ and were more likely to believe that they would be able to incorporate the required changes into their working lives and adapt. Another major observation made during the qualitative study was the relationship between the type of involvement in the process and the way in which policies were interpreted and implemented. Fishers that experienced the ‘battle-zone’ were generally more likely to believe that policy change would not only be ‘unfair’, ‘immoral’ or ‘illegal’, but also ineffective in protecting the sustainability of the fisheries resource (e.g. “the same amount of effort is there, but now just pushed around”, or “they try and do good, but really all they are doing is making some people richer, and other people poorer”). In contrast, fishers that were meaningfully involved in the process were more likely to believe that policy changes would better protect the fisheries resource. They were also more likely to think that less time was required for their implementation and were more positive in their anticipation of the likely social impacts. This observation suggests that, whilst confident fishers may be attracted to the process because they are, in general, more confident, commercial fishers may develop a positive or negative perception of policy change on the basis of the nature of their involvement on the decision-making process. 4. Discussion This study of commercial fishers in Queensland, Australia, shows that the way resource users assess, appreciate and experience prospective policy change influences their behaviour and emotional response, which, in turn can influence their resilience. The combined effect of the extent to which resource users are engaged in the decision-making process, the rate at which change is implemented, and how policies are interpreted for equity and conservation effectiveness can significantly and adversely affect the ability of resource users to cope and adapt to a strategy aimed at sustaining natural resources. This concept is fundamental to understanding how resource users can be resilient to resource management. Whilst results suggested that marital factors can influence perception, results also suggested that policies are perceived independently of personal and business circumstances and are strongly influenced by the policy environment. Policy perception significantly influenced two dimensions of a commercial fisher’s resilience: the assessment of risk and the ability to cope. These dimensions describe the level of confidence that fishers might have in themselves and in the future (Marshall and Marshall, 2007). Results suggest that fishers that positively perceive policy change are more likely to positively assess the future and their ability to control it. They will understand and respect the need for change, and will be more likely to incorporate its requirements into their working lives. In contrast, fishers that negatively perceive policy change assess them as ‘unfair’, ‘unnecessary’, ‘wrong’, ‘immoral’ or ‘illegal’. These people are likely to be unprepared for change and less likely to successfully cope and adapt (Bailey and Pomeroy, 1996; Bass, 1998; Salz, 1998; Waitt and Hartig, 2000). Policy perception did not significantly influence other dimensions of social resilience

such as the perception of the ability to plan and reorganise and the level of interest in change. Many researchers discuss the importance of involvement in the decision-making process (Charles, 1992; Maiolo et al., 1992; Jones, 1999), yet few have described its influence on the resilience of resource users. Meaningful and positive involvement in the process is essential to foster feelings of satisfaction, understanding, trust and confidence in the future. These feelings are necessary for a successful transition to the new policy regime (Beckley, 1995). If people feel confident about their future and the future of the resource, then they are more likely to confidently assess the risks associated with policy change and are more likely to adapt to their requirements. They are also more likely to cope. Whilst confident people may be attracted to the decision-making process because they are confident, results from this study suggest that confidence in one’s abilities and protects can be easily developed and maintained through a meaningful communication about the management of resources, during which equity, perceptions of conservation effectiveness and implementation rates can also be addressed. Kallstrom and Ljung (2005) describe that, within a farming context at least, resource users must be satisfied with their situation and have some control over policy decisions. By participating in decisions regarding the future conditions of the resource, and by taking part in public debate, day-to-day farming becomes more meaningful, social identities are strengthened and a stronger sense of ‘self-in-place’ is developed. These attributes contribute to a resource user’s flexibility, adaptability and preparedness to change; all essential in the maintenance of system resilience (Kallstrom and Ljung, 2005). Involving people in the management of natural resources enables the decision process to be more transparent. This is especially important to allow people to see how equity issues are addressed. Perceptions of inequity in the distribution of the costs and benefits of resource protection measures are known to be a major influence on how policies are perceived and interpreted (Smith, 1995; Smith et al., 2003), where, inevitably, the costs of resource protection are rarely perceived to be evenly distributed. This is especially true of small-scale operators with un-transferable skills (McCay, 1981; Bass, 1998; Salz, 1998; Cochrane, 2000). Feelings of inequity can lead to hopelessness, despair and anger, and can erode confidence in the future, reduce quality of life and decrease the sense of well-being. By making the decision-making process transparent through meaningful participation, people will be less likely to automatically respond negatively to prospective change and will be more conducive to incorporating change into their lives. Another advantage of engaging resource users in the protection of natural resources is that other social impacts such as ‘anticipated’ impacts are less likely to manifest (Freudenberg and Keating, 1985; Gramling and Freudenberg, 1992; Bennett et al., 2002). The period between policy proposal and policy implementation is a period of sometimes great uncertainty that can be extremely stressful. As people become aware of impending change, they often attempt to interpret its implications and, in many instances, anticipate impacts on the basis of previous experience (Force et al., 1993; Walters et al., 1999). Regardless

N.A. Marshall / Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 216–227

of whether the anticipated impacts will actually ever eventuate, the stress associated with anticipation can severely hamper the process by which people cope and adapt. Results from this study have shown that engaging resource users is a relatively simple way to minimise costs associated with resource protection. The rate at which resource protection strategies are implemented can also be better managed with guidance from people likely to experience the change. For change to be successfully incorporated into people’s lives, sufficient time is required to allow ‘diffusion’ and adaptation processes to occur (Ogburn, 1972). Diffusion is the process by which information about an impending change is introduced and dispersed through a community. People often need time to evaluate how change may affect them and to implement measures or strategies to assist with the adaptation process. By allowing people to be involved in the decision itself, diffusions processes become more efficient and time for adaptation processes reduce. Policy makers and resource managers often view community involvement in the design of resource protection strategies as ‘chaotic’, because the process is generally non-linear, frequently unclear, and usually ridden with conflict. Fisheries managers have been particularly reluctant to have participants in the process in comparison with logging, mining and farming industries. Participants often have limited knowledge of the full context of their role in the process and of the role of institutions and can complicate the interactions (Manring et al., 1990; Hanna and Smith, 1993; Buchy and Race, 2001; Hiedanpaa, 2005). In this study, however, I argue that the benefits of community involvement in the decision-making process can outweigh these costs. A greater extent of involvement of resource users in the design of resource protection strategies can increase social resilience and increase acceptance and compliance to the change. Resource policies are thus more likely to effectively protect the resource. The development of the survey scale to assess policy perception allows social issues to be more easily considered and monitored in the fisheries-management process. Regular monitoring of policy perception prior to the development and implementation of a prospective resource-protection strategy will allow managers and community members to gauge current social conditions and tailor processes to minimize negative impacts on social resilience. This is important since researchers have shown that commercial fishers who believe they have been inequitably imposed upon to bear the costs of change are likely to be ‘uncooperative’ or ‘pathologically resistant’ to change requirements (Hanna, 1996; Symes, 1996; Harms and Sylvia, 2001; Jabareen, 2004). A positive perception of prospective change may indicate that social conditions are amenable to an introduction whilst a negative result may indicate that resilience may be affected. This knowledge can underpin progressive management approaches aimed at more effective and equitable resource protection. The incorporation of social knowledge into the management of fisheries around the world is still only in its infancy. Nonetheless, there is sufficient evidence from other resource systems around the world (e.g. mining, logging, farming, coastal management) to suggest that where social knowledge is not considered, the fate of natural resources remains especially

225

uncertain (Berkes et al., 2004). Resource-protection policies that are introduced without due consideration of social factors can be ineffective in achieving resource protection: they are typically associated with intense conflict, low compliance, significant delays and overly complicated criteria. The inclusion of social knowledge into the decision-making process heralds a new era in the management of natural resources. Acknowledgements I sincerely thank Paul Marshall, Mark Fenton and Steve Sutton for significant contributions to the development of this paper and to the 100 fishers and their families that were involved in the research. I also thank Neil Adger and Fikret Berkes for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript and to James Innes, Ameer Abdulla and Per Olsson for stimulating discussion. I gratefully acknowledge funding from the School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James Cook University, Townsville and the Cooperative Research Centre for Reef Research, Townsville, Australia. References Adger, W.N., 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 24, 347–364. Adger, W.N., Kelly, P.M., Winkels, A., Huy, L.Q., Locke, C., 2002. Migration, remittances, livelihood trajectories, and social resilience. Ambio 31, 358–366. Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 35, 216–224. Bailey, C., 1997. Lessons from Indonesia’s 1980 trawler ban. Mar. Policy 21, 225–235. Bailey, C., Pomeroy, C., 1996. Resource dependency and development options in coastal Southeast Asia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 9, 191–199. Bass, R., 1998. Evaluating environmental justice under the national environmental policy act. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 18, 83–92. Beckley, T.M., 1995. Community stability and the relationship between economic and social well-being in forest-dependent communities. Soc. Nat. Resour. 8, 261–266. Bennett, K., Carroll, T., Lowe, P., Phillipson, J., 2002. Coping with Crisis in Cumbria: The Consequences of Foot and Mouth Disease. University of Newcastle, Centre for Rural Economy Research Report, Newcastle upon Tyne, online at: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cre/publications/research reports/rr02 01Cumbria.htm. Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. In: Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–25. Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2004. Introduction. In: Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), Navigating Social-ecological Systems. Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–29. Buchy, M., Race, D., 2001. The twists and turns of community participation in natural resource management. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 44, 293–308. Carpenter, S., Brock, W.A., 2004. Spatial complexity, resilience and policy diversity: fishing on lake-rich landscapes. Ecol. Soc. 9, online at: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art8. Carroll, M.S., Lee, R.G., 1990. Occupational community and identity among Pacific NorthWestern loggers: implications for adapting to economic changes. In: Lee, R.G., Field, D.R., Burch, W.R.J. (Eds.), Community and Forestry: Continuities in the Sociology of Natural Resources. Westview Press, Colorado, pp. 141–154.

226

N.A. Marshall / Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 216–227

Charles, A.T., 1992. Fishery conflicts. A unified framework. Mar. Policy 16, 379–393. Coakes, S., 1998. Valuing the social dimension: social impact assessment in the regional forest agreement process. Aust. J. Environ. Manage. 5, 47–54. Cochrane, K.L., 2000. Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away. Fish Fish. 1, 3–21. Costanza, R., Daly, H., Folke, C., Hawken, P., Holling, C.S., McMichael, A., Pimentel, D., Rapport, D.J., 2000. Managing our environmental portfolio. Bioscience 50, 149–155. Fenton, D.M., Marshall, N.A., 2001. A Guide to the Fishers of Queensland. Part A. TRC-Analysis and Social Profiles of Queensland’s Commercial Fishing Industry. Technical Report No. 36, CRC Reef Research Centre, online at: http://www.reef.crc.org.au/research/fishing fisheries/commercial.html. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., Walker, B., Bengston, D.N., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Danell, K., Falkenmark, M., Gordon, L., Kasperson, R.E., Kautsky, N., Kinzig, A., Levin, S., Maler, K., Moberg, F., Ohlsson, L., Ohlsson, E., Reid, W.V., Rockstrom, J., Savenije, H., Svedin, U., 2002. Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. Scientific Background Paper on Resilience for the Process of The World Summit on Sustainable Development on behalf of The Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government, p. 73, online at: http://www.unisdr.org/eng/riskreduction/wssd/resilience-sd.pdf. Force, J.E., Machlis, G.E., Zhang, C., Kearney, A., 1993. The relationship between timber production, local historical events, and community social change: a quantitative case study. Forest Sci. 39, 722–742. Freudenberg, W.R., Keating, K.M., 1985. Applying sociology to policy: social science and the environmental impact statement. Rural Sociol. 50, 578–605. Fricke, P., 1985. Use of sociological data in the allocation of common property resources. Mar. Policy 9, 39–52. Gramling, R., Freudenberg, W.R., 1992. Opportunity-threat, development, and adaptation: toward a comprehensive framework for social impact assessment. Rural Sociol. 57, 216–234. Hanna, S., 1996. Creating user-group vested interest in fishery management outcomes: a case study. In: Meyer, R.M., Zhang, C., Windsor, M.L., McCay, B.J., Hushak, L.J., Muth, R.M. (Eds.), Fisheries Resource Utilization and Policy: Proceedings of the World Fisheries Congress. Theme 2. Science Publishers, Lebanon, USA, pp. 391–400. Hanna, S., Smith, C.L., 1993. Resolving allocation conflicts in fishery management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 6, 55–69. Harms, J., Sylvia, G., 2001. A Comparison of conservation perspectives between scientists, managers, and industry in the west coast groundfish fishery. Fisheries 26, 6–15. Healey, M.C., Hennessey, T., 1998. The paradox of fairness: the impact of escalating complexity on fishery management. Mar. Policy 22, 109–118. Hiedanpaa, J., 2005. The edges of conflict and consensus: a case for creativity in regional forest policy in Southwest Finland. Ecol. Econ. 55, 485– 498. Holling, C.S., Meffe, G.K., 1996a. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv. Biol. 10, 328–337. Holling, C.S., Meffe, G.K., 1996b. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv. Biol. 10, 328. Hughes, T.P., Bellwood, D.R., Folke, C., Steneck, R.S., Wilson, J., 2005. New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, http://doc.nprb.org/web/BSIERP/Hughes%20et%20al%202005 ecosystem%202020resilience.pdf. Hughey, K.F.D., 2000. User led iniatives in promoting sustainable commercial fisheries management—comparing the divergent approaches of Australia and New Zealand. In: Hale, P., Petrie, A., Moloney, D., Sattler, P. (Eds.), Management for Sustainable Ecosystems. Centre for Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 139–146. Jabareen, Y., 2004. A knowledge map for describing variegated and conflict domains of sustainable development. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 47, 623–642. Jentoft, S., McCay, B.J., Wilson, D.C., 1998. Social theory and fisheries comanagement. Mar. Policy 22, 423–436. Jones, P.J.S., 1999. Marine nature reserves in Britain: past lessons, current status and future issues. Mar. Policy 23, 375–396.

Kallstrom, H.N., Ljung, M., 2005. Social sustainability and collaborative learning. Ambio 34, 376–382. Lane, D.E., Stephenson, R.L., 1995. Fisheries management science: the framework to link biological, economic and social objectives in fisheries management. Aquat. Living Resour. 8, 215–221. Levin, S., Barrett, S., Aniyar, S., Baumol, W., Bliss, C., Bolin, B., Dasgupta, P., Ehrich, P.R., Folke, C., Gren, I., Holling, C.S., Jansson, A., Jansson, B., Maler, K., Martin, D., Perrings, C., Sheshinski, E., 1998. Resilience in natural and socioeconomic systems. Environ. Dev. Econ. 3, 222– 235. Ludwig, D., Walker, B., Holling, C.S., 1997. Sustainability, stability and resilience. Conserv. Ecol. 1, online at: www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art7. Maiolo, J.R., Johnson, J., Griffith, D., 1992. Applications of social science theory to fisheries management: three examples. Soc. Nat. Resour. 5, 391– 407. Manfredo, M.J., Dayer, A.A., 2004. Concepts for exploring the social aspects of human-wildlife conflict in a global context. Hum. Dimens. Wildlife 9, 317–328. Manring, N., West, P.C., Bidol, P., 1990. Social impact assessment and environmental conflict management: potential for integration and application. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 10, 253–265. Marshall, N.A., Marshall, P.A., 2007. Conceptualising and operationalising social resilience within commercial fisheries in Northern Australia. Ecol. Soc. 12, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss11/art11/. Marshall, N.A., Fenton, D.M., Marshall, P.A., Sutton, S., 2007. How resourcedependency can influence social resilience within a primary resource industry. Rural Sociol. 72, in press. McCay, B.J., 1981. Optimal foragers or political actors? Ecological analyses of a New Jersey fishery. Am. Ethnol. 11, 356–382. McCay, B.J., 1996. Participation of fishers in fisheries management. In: Meyer, R.M., Zhang, C., Windsor, M.L., McCay, B.J., Husgak, L.J., Muth, R.M. (Eds.), Fisheries Resource Utilization and Policy: Proceedings of the World Fisheries Congress, Theme 2. Science Publishers Inc., Lebanon, USA, pp. 60–75. McCay, B.J., Jentoft, S., 1996. From the bottom up: participatory issues in fisheries management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 9, 237–250. McPhee, D.P., Loveday, T.D., 2000. The Queensland fishing industry and ecologically sustainable development. In: Hale, P., Petrie, A., Moloney, D., Sattler, P. (Eds.), Management for Sustainable Ecosystems. Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 132– 138. Meffe, G.K., 2001a. Crisis in a crisis discipline. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol. 15, 303. Meffe, G.K., 2001b. Unity. Conserv. Biol. 15, 1475–1476. Ogburn, W.F., 1972. Fixity and persistence in society. In: Nisbet, R. (Ed.), Social Change. Basil Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 46–72. Parsons, T., 1966. Societies. Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey. Salz, R.J., 1998. Social Justice and the Florida Net Ban Controversy. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources Conservation, Amherst. Shivlani, M.P., Milon, J.W., 2000. Sociocultural effects of a market-based fishery management program in the florida keys. Coastal Manage. 28, 133– 147. Smith, S., 1995. Social implications of changes in fisheries regulations for commercial fishing families. Fisheries 20, 24–26. Smith, S., Jacob, S.J., Jepson, M., Israel, G., 2003. After the Florida net ban: the impacts on commercial fishing families. Soc. Nat. Resour. 16, 39–59. Stedman, R.C., 1999. Sense of place as an indicator of community sustainability. Forestry Chron. 75, 765–770. Stemler, S., 2001. An overview of content analysis. Pract. Asses. Res. Eval. 7, online at: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17. Symes, D., 1996. Fisheries management and the social sciences: a way forward? Sociol. Ruralis 36, 146–151. Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed. Harper Collins College Publishers, California. Underwood, A.J., 1997. Experiments in Ecology. Their Logical Design and Interpretation Using Analysis of Variance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

N.A. Marshall / Fisheries Research 86 (2007) 216–227 Waitt, G., Hartig, K., 2000. Ecologically sustainable fishing in theory and practice: individual transferable quotas in Australia’s southeast fishery. Aust. Geogr. 31, 87–114. Walters, B.B., Cadelina, A., Cardano, A., Visitacion, E., 1999. Community history and rural development: why some farmers participate more readily than others. Agric. Syst. 59, 193–214.

227

Wilson, J.A., Acheson, J.M., Metcalf, M., Kleban, P., 1994. Chaos, complexity and community management of fisheries. Mar. Policy 18, 291– 305. Zeller, D., Carmines, E.G., 1980. Measurement in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press, London.