Concern is in the Eye of the Stakeholder: Heterogeneous Assessments of the Threats to Oyster Survival and Restoration in North Carolina

Abstract

Coastal oceans and estuaries face unprecedented threats to sustainability and productivity. The vulnerability of these ecosystems persists in part due to how threats to them are perceived. Understanding the subjectivity in how stakeholders frame and assess threats to coastal ecosystems is critical to management and restoration. This study utilized a participatory risk mapping methodology to assess how stakeholders in oysters (Crassostrea virginica) in North Carolina perceive the threats to oyster survival and efforts to restore oyster populations. The resulting threat maps demonstrate that stakeholders perceived different threats and assessed the same threats with varying levels of concern. Stakeholder groups expressed contradictory views of the threats from harvest and natural disturbances, revealing differences in perceptions of nature and how stakeholders view themselves in relation to the environment—a relationship that reflects history, knowledge, expectations, culture, and economy. Unresolved, these differences can impede management processes and diminish the effectiveness of restoration activities.

Keywords:

• ecological restoration
• fisheries management
• human–environment relationship
• oysters
• risk
• stakeholder perception

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Seth Reice, Charles “Pete” Peterson, Michael Piehler, Robbie Cox, and William Stott for numerous discussions. I thank Grant Murray and Jessica Rothman for insightful comments on the article. Thanks to Jonathan Kropko for statistical consultation. This study would not have been possible without the informants who generously shared their time and perspectives. Present affiliation for the author is University of North Carolina Coastal Studies Institute, Wanchese, NC, USA.

Notes

¹Two informants were excluded from the analysis because they could not be ascribed to a stakeholder group, and as such, their responses could not be appropriately added to a group for analysis. In another case, the informant excluded himself from the analysis by declining to answer the ranking question.