IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04044150.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who Is in and Who Is out in Ocean Economies Development?

Author

Listed:
  • Marianna Cavallo

    (LEMAR - Laboratoire des Sciences de l'Environnement Marin (LEMAR) - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - IFREMER - Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer - UBO - Université de Brest - IUEM - Institut Universitaire Européen de la Mer - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - INSU - CNRS - Institut national des sciences de l'Univers - UBO - Université de Brest - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Alicia Bugeja Said

    (Agrikoltura - Ministry for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Animal Rights)

  • José A Pérez Agúndez

    (IFREMER - Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer, AMURE - Aménagement des Usages des Ressources et des Espaces marins et littoraux - Centre de droit et d'économie de la mer - IFREMER - Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer - UBO - Université de Brest - IUEM - Institut Universitaire Européen de la Mer - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - INSU - CNRS - Institut national des sciences de l'Univers - UBO - Université de Brest - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

This review engages with the ongoing blue economy debate to decipher old and emerging forms of economic, institutional, physical and social exclusions of local communities and vulnerable societies that may result from the development of ocean projects and policies across the globe. The results of this scientific and policy review show that, whereas for some traditional maritime activities such as fisheries, the drivers of exclusion are well studied and somehow addressed in policies, for other emerging sectors, such as ocean energies or deep-sea mining, there is a lack of understanding on how to recognise and prevent the different forms of exclusion. Exclusion is likely to occur when decisions are taken at the highest level of governance to achieve national or international targets of economic growth, food safety, clean energy or leisure, with little consideration of the effects on local economic, social and environmental contexts. On the other hand, when the principles of inclusiveness are given due consideration, they prove to be beneficial for the societies' well-being, increasing the chance of long-term social acceptability. We conclude that, to embrace inclusiveness, both governments and industries have to (a) go beyond the capitalist commodification of nature and recognise benefits other than the economic ones, namely, emotional, cultural and spiritual; (b) promote initiatives that fulfil local needs in the first place and are adapted to local contexts; (c) cooperate with local institutions and stakeholders to promote the co-management of resources and adaptive development. Likewise, research institutions, funding organisations and governmental agencies have to engage in new ways to assess the effects of ocean development that go beyond the quantitative approach and seek to integrate qualitative information, traditional knowledge and local perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Marianna Cavallo & Alicia Bugeja Said & José A Pérez Agúndez, 2023. "Who Is in and Who Is out in Ocean Economies Development?," Post-Print hal-04044150, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04044150
    DOI: 10.3390/su15043253
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.univ-brest.fr/hal-04044150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.univ-brest.fr/hal-04044150/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3390/su15043253?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    2. Hossain, Md. Shakhaoat & Fakhruddin, Abu Naieum Muhammad & Chowdhury, Muhammed Alamgir Zaman & Gan, Siew Hua, 2016. "Impact of ship-Breaking activities on the coastal environment of Bangladesh and a management system for its sustainability," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 84-94.
    3. Sunderlin, William D. & Larson, Anne M. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Resosudarmo, Ida Aju Pradnja & Huynh, Thu Ba & Awono, Abdon & Dokken, Therese, 2014. "How are REDD+ Proponents Addressing Tenure Problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 37-52.
    4. Huntington, Henry P. & Daniel, Raychelle & Hartsig, Andrew & Harun, Kevin & Heiman, Marilyn & Meehan, Rosa & Noongwook, George & Pearson, Leslie & Prior-Parks, Melissa & Robards, Martin & Stetson, Geo, 2015. "Vessels, risks, and rules: Planning for safe shipping in Bering Strait," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 119-127.
    5. Hadjimichael, Maria & Bruggeman, Adriana & Lange, Manfred A., 2014. "Tragedy of the few? A political ecology perspective of the right to the sea: The Cyprus marine aquaculture sector," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 12-19.
    6. Nicole Peterson, 2011. "Excluding to include: (Non)participation in Mexican natural resource management," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(1), pages 99-107, February.
    7. Laurent Barillé & Anthony Le Bris & Philippe Goulletquer & Yoann Thomas & Philippe Glize & Frank Kane & Lynne Falconer & Patrice Guillotreau & Brice Trouillet & Stéphanie Palmer & Pierre Gernez, 2020. "Biological, socio-economic, and administrative opportunities and challenges to moving aquaculture offshore for small French oyster-farming companies," Post-Print hal-02514120, HAL.
    8. Hooper, Tara & Austen, Melanie, 2014. "The co-location of offshore windfarms and decapod fisheries in the UK: Constraints and opportunities," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 295-300.
    9. Michler-Cieluch, Tanja & Krause, Gesche, 2008. "Perceived concerns and possible management strategies for governing 'wind farm-mariculture integration'," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1013-1022, November.
    10. Thomas, Sebastian, 2014. "Blue carbon: Knowledge gaps, critical issues, and novel approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 22-38.
    11. Firestone, Jeremy & Kempton, Willett, 2007. "Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1584-1598, March.
    12. Sangeeta Sonak & Mahesh Sonak & Asha Giriyan, 2008. "Shipping hazardous waste: implications for economically developing countries," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 143-159, June.
    13. Njock, Jean-Calvin & Westlund, Lena, 2010. "Migration, resource management and global change: Experiences from fishing communities in West and Central Africa," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 752-760, July.
    14. MacDonald, Patricia A. & Murray, Grant & Patterson, Michele, 2015. "Considering social values in the seafood sector using the Q-method," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 68-76.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marianna Cavallo & Alicia Bugeja Said & José A. Pérez Agúndez, 2023. "Who Is in and Who Is out in Ocean Economies Development?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, February.
    2. A.H.T. Shyam Kularathna & Sayaka Suda & Ken Takagi & Shigeru Tabeta, 2019. "Evaluation of Co-Existence Options of Marine Renewable Energy Projects in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-26, May.
    3. Wright, Glen & O’Hagan, Anne Marie & de Groot, Jiska & Leroy, Yannick & Soininen, Niko & Salcido, Rachael & Castelos, Montserrat Abad & Jude, Simon & Rochette, Julien & Kerr, Sandy, 2016. "Establishing a legal research agenda for ocean energy," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 126-134.
    4. Marie-Christine Cormier-Salem, 2017. "Let the Women Harvest the Mangrove. Carbon Policy, and Environmental Injustice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, August.
    5. Hooper, Tara & Ashley, Matthew & Austen, Melanie, 2015. "Perceptions of fishers and developers on the co-location of offshore wind farms and decapod fisheries in the UK," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 16-22.
    6. Andersson, Krister P. & Smith, Steven M. & Alston, Lee J. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Mwangi, Esther & Larson, Anne M. & de Sassi, Claudio & Sills, Erin O. & Sunderlin, William D. & Wong, Grace Y., 2018. "Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: Implications for REDD+," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 510-522.
    7. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    8. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    9. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    10. Valentine, Scott Victor, 2011. "Understanding the variability of wind power costs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(8), pages 3632-3639.
    11. Ho, Lip-Wah & Lie, Tek-Tjing & Leong, Paul TM & Clear, Tony, 2018. "Developing offshore wind farm siting criteria by using an international Delphi method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 53-67.
    12. Benedetta Cotta, 0. "What goes around, comes around? Access and allocation problems in Global North–South waste trade," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-15.
    13. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    14. Buchenrieder, Gertrud & Dufhues, Thomas & Theesfeld, Insa & Nuchanata, Mungkung, 2017. "Participatory local governance and cultural practices in Thailand," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 3, pages 1-19.
    15. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    16. Saud Alshehri & Yacine Rezgui & Haijiang Li, 2015. "Delphi-based consensus study into a framework of community resilience to disaster," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 75(3), pages 2221-2245, February.
    17. David Rudolph & Claire Haggett & Mhairi Aitken, 2018. "Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 92-117, February.
    18. Valentine, Scott Victor, 2010. "A STEP toward understanding wind power development policy barriers in advanced economies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 2796-2807, December.
    19. Vatn, Arild & Kajembe, George & Mosi, Elvis & Nantongo, Maria & Silayo, Dos Santos, 2017. "What does it take to institute REDD+? An analysis of the Kilosa REDD+ pilot, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-9.
    20. Pine, Matthew K. & Schmitt, Pál & Culloch, Ross M. & Lieber, Lilian & Kregting, Louise T., 2019. "Providing ecological context to anthropogenic subsea noise: Assessing listening space reductions of marine mammals from tidal energy devices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 49-57.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    blue economy blue growth inclusiveness local communities marine governance; blue economy; blue growth; inclusiveness; local communities; marine governance;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04044150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.