What Scientists Say about the Changing Risk Calculation in the Marine Environment under the Harper Government of Canada (2006-2015):

Barnett, Allain J.; Wiber, Melanie G.

doi:10.31230/osf.io/5asug

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many of these hindrances are exacerbated by the complex patchwork of legislation (Figure 1 ), which is driven by changing political priorities that affect available resources, project time lines, engagement strategies, and willingness to share data. The power of political will to shape how environmental impacts are characterized and managed is exemplified by previous administrations in Canada, the United States, and Mexico during which environmental protection regulations and legislation and scientific and public input into management decisions were eroded or reduced (Barnett and Wiber 2019 ; Hejny 2018 ; Balderas Torres et al. 2020 ).…”

Section: Shared Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical implementation of cumulative‐effects management of marine ecosystems in western North America

Hollarsmith

Therriault

Côté

2021

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, ecosystem structure and function have been degraded by the cumulative effects (CE) of multiple stressors. To maintain ecosystem resilience, there is an urgent need to better account for CE in management decision-making at various scales. Current laws and regulations are supported by a multitude of frameworks and strategies that vary in application and terminology use across management agencies and geopolitical boundaries. We synthesized management frameworks that accounted for CE in marine ecosystems at the regional and national levels across western North America (Canada, United States, Mexico) to identify similarities and shared challenges to successful implementation. We examined examples of solutions to the identified challenges (e.g., interagency and cross-border partnerships to overcome challenges of managing for ecologically relevant spatial scales). Management frameworks in general consisted of 3 phases: scoping and structuring the system; characterizing relationships; and evaluating management options. Challenges in the robust implementation of these phases included lack of interagency coordination, minimal incorporation of diverse perspectives, and data deficiencies. Cases that provided solutions to these challenges encouraged coordination at ecological rather than jurisdictional scales, enhanced involvement of stakeholders and Indigenous groups, and used nontraditional data sources for decision-making. Broader implementation of these approaches, combined with increased interagency and international coordination and collaboration, should facilitate the rapid advancement of more effective CE assessment and ecosystem management in North America and elsewhere.

show abstract

Section: Shared Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical implementation of cumulative‐effects management of marine ecosystems in western North America

Hollarsmith

Therriault

Côté

2021

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Canada, environmental researchers faced similar problems under Stephen Harper’s government (2006–2015). The freedom of expression for those working in state research institutions was significantly restricted (e.g., Magnuson-Ford and Gibbs 2014; Amend and Barney 2016; Evans Ogden 2016; Barnett and Wiber 2019). Similar worries were raised after Donald Trump was elected in 2016.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Freedom of Expression Challenged: Scientists’ Perspectives on Hidden Forms of Suppression and Self-censorship

Väliverronen

Saikkonen

2020

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The media have become an important arena where struggles over the symbolic legitimacy of expert authority take place and where scientific experts increasingly have to compete for public recognition. The rise of authoritarian and populist leaders in many countries and the growing importance of social media have fueled criticism against scientific institutions and individual researchers. This paper discusses the new hidden forms of suppression and self-censorship regarding scientists’ roles as public experts. It is based on two web surveys conducted among Finnish researchers in 2015 and 2017. We focus on answers to the open-ended questions in these surveys, where respondents reflect upon issues of freedom of expression and the feedback they receive in public arenas. Building on previous research on suppression, “research silencing,” and the “chilling effect,” we discuss the connection between freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry. We make a distinction between four forms of suppression: political and economic control, organizational control, control between rival academics, and control from publics. Moreover, we make explicit and discuss the means, motives, and practices of suppression within each of these four forms.

show abstract

What Scientists Say about the Changing Risk Calculation in the Marine Environment under the Harper Government of Canada (2006-2015):

Abstract: This paper examines how the Harper

Cited by 2 publications

References 6 publications

Practical implementation of cumulative‐effects management of marine ecosystems in western North America

Practical implementation of cumulative‐effects management of marine ecosystems in western North America

Freedom of Expression Challenged: Scientists’ Perspectives on Hidden Forms of Suppression and Self-censorship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About