Keywords: power and agency, human development, human health, well-being,
sense of place, food system
Introduction
Over 40% of the global population and most of the world’s megacities
are located in coastal areas (Neumann et al. 2015; Seto 2011), with
migration towards urban coastal areas expected to continue beyond 2030
(Merkens et al. 2016; Steffen et al. 2015). The co-location of human
population centres at the interface between land and sea has
far-reaching effects on the health of our oceans and the health of
society (Figure 1; Box 1). Human health is dependent on the ocean
because many coastal communities depend on the marine environment for
food, shelter, livelihoods, spiritual wellbeing, medicines and other
resources (Fleming et al. 2019; Malve 2016). Proximity to coastal areas
has also been associated with better quality of life, and enhanced
mental health and well-being (Britton et al. 2018; Garrett et al. 2019),
due to reductions in stress, improved air quality, relaxation and
physically active lifestyles, increased social interactions, and
spiritual connection to the ocean (Fleming et al. 2019). At the same
time, coastal communities also face ocean-associated risks and are
vulnerable to natural disasters such as storm surges (Arkema et al.
2013; Neumann et al. 2015). These desirable and undesirable interactions
between society and the oceans affect human health; for example, ocean
animals and plants provide essential nutrition for humanity, while
oceanic plankton supports oxygen production into our atmosphere. Just as
the oceans influence human health, society impacts ocean health, through
coastal development, pollution, and industry-driven ecosystem
degradation (Halpern et al. 2017). In contrast, close cultural
connection with the oceans, can result in significant stewardship and
support for the protection or restoration of ocean ecosystems (Ainsworth
et al. 2019; Beatley 2014). These links can lead to reinforcing
feedbacks that perpetuate desirable or undesirable outcomes. For
example, where communities or individuals are unable to meet their basic
physiological needs, such as safe, nutritious food, their capacity to
engage with higher-level needs such as environmental stewardship is
undermined (Maslow 1943). As a result, loss of access to seafood due to
ocean degradation may lead to a reduction in stewardship behaviour that
leads to further environmental damage.
To address pressing sustainability issues at the intersection of ocean
and society, there is a need to promote desirable and minimise
undesirable interactions and feedbacks. However, intensifying and
diversifying global anthropogenic developments make this a considerable
challenge. Firstly human population growth increases society’s pressure
on the oceans, for example through rising demand for seafood (Blanchard
et al. 2017) and industrialisation of the ocean (Golden et al. 2017).
Secondly, large-scale anthropogenically driven environmental change
impacts ocean and human health. For example, via adverse impacts on
marine productivity (Singh et al. 2019), the increased prevalence of
non-communicable diseases such as malnutrition (both under nutrition,
e.g. stunting, and poor nutrition, e.g. obesity), and communicable
disease such as cholera, (Jutla et al. 2017; Swinburn et al. 2019).
Thirdly, there are major geographic inequalities in health outcomes. For
example, seafood is a disproportionately a more important protein and
micronutrient source in many low-income countries compared to wealthier
nations (Golden et al. 2016; Hicks et al. 2019). However, it is also
anticipated these same low-income countries will suffer
disproportionally from climate change impacts such as the geographic
redistribution of their primary seafood resources (Cheung et al. 2010;
Lotze et al. 2019; Pecl et al. 2017) and rising sea-levels (Dolan and
Walker 2006; Mergler et al. 2007). There are also geographic disparities
in ocean health: climate-induced marine species range expansions and
extinctions will likely have a greater impact on tropical regions, while
invasive species will alter marine communities in polar and Southern
seas (Cheung et al. 2009; Pecl et al. 2017). Countries derive different
levels of benefit from marine resource extraction, with associated
consequences for ocean health. For example, nations that have oil and
gas reserves and exploit these resources receive significant revenues.
However, they also place disproportionately more environmental pressure
on associated marine ecosystem and contribute more to climate change
than countries with lesser or no oil and gas reserves (Nixon 2011).
Exploring potential pathways towards a future that supports both ocean
and human health is critical to improve society’s capacity to achieve
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In this paper, we identify two
scenarios for 2030. The first is Business-as-Usual (BAU), which we title
‘Command & (Out of) Control ’, and which focuses on the
anticipated future based on our current trajectory. This BAU scenario
assumes a lack of understanding of current or prospective desirable and
undesirable feedbacks between ocean and human health has the potential
to lead to detrimental decision-making (‘Command’). The result is an
‘out of control’ trajectory of undesirable human and ocean health
connections. The second is a more sustainable scenario, which we call
‘Living & Connecting ’, which emphasises the development of
desirable interactions between ocean and human health in line with
meeting the SDGs. We then explore a potential pathway to achieve the
‘Living & Connecting’ scenario, highlighting key actions to move
towards this future. There are two aspects to the future scenarios that
should be noted here. Firstly, the futures described below are
representative of the authors worldviews and experiences predominately
within western cultures, and as such are primarily representative of
futures in these contexts. In doing so, we note that these scenarios
would differ based on different perspectives (in particular, those from
the global south), and thus the interpretation of the pathways presented
should be considered within this context. Secondly, in the process of
writing these scenarios the COVID-19 pandemic presented the world with
new challenges and imposed some major changes to economies and
socioecological systems. The business as usual scenario assumes a return
to the trajectory underway at the time immediately before COVID-19. We
note that current disruptions to the global ocean, environment and
society because of COVID-19 may indeed present a platform for change and
an opportunity to ‘reset’ trajectories in the coming decade (as
discussed in Pecl et al. in prep.).The sustainable future presented here is
one option for such a shift.
Business-as-Usual 2030 – ‘Command & (Out of) Control ’
Under this scenario, looking back from 2030 we can see that GDP has
continued along an upward trend, though the disparities in growth within
and among countries persist. The blue economy, in particular, is
booming, having doubled in value to $3 trillion since 2020. Traditional
sectors such as fisheries, shipping, and resource extraction contributed
to this growth, but industries that have emerged in recent decades, such
as geoengineering, offshore aquaculture, renewable energy and the mining
of deep-water, previously unexplored mineral resources continue to add
increasing value to the sector (Wan et al. 2018).
An increasing trend in seafood consumption continues to support the
health of a burgeoning middle class globally. International coastal
tourism continues to expand, along with associated service industries
providing revenue and alternate livelihoods for destination communities
(Fatanti and Suyadnya 2015; Kim et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2018). Health
and wellbeing improve for the select demographic who can afford to take
part in these tourism and recreational opportunities and incorporate
more seafood into their diet. The result of these trends is that SDG 8
(Decent Work & Economic Growth) and 9 (Industry, Innovation &
Infrastructure) were met in many countries. Furthermore, overall poverty
has continued to decline (World Bank 2019), and although Sub-Saharan
Africa has not attained the growth of other regions, many nations in
other regions of the world meet SDG 1 (No Poverty) ahead of the 2030
target (Sachs et al. 2018).
Examples of local and regional policies and consequent management
strategies that account for the inextricable links between oceans and
humans, such as the Marine Framework Strategy Directive, Integrated
Maritime Policy and the Marine Spatial Planning Directive within the EU
are now well established (Costa and Caldeira 2018). These frameworks
recognise the positive impacts that global oceans have on human health
and wellbeing (McMeel et al. 2019), for example, Article 1.2 of the
Marine Framework Strategy Directive “prevent and reduce inputs in
the marine environment, with a view to phasing out pollution as defined
in Article 3(8), so as to ensure that there are no significant impacts
on or risks to marine biodiversity, marine ecosystems, human health or
legitimate uses of the sea.” (European Commission 2008). This progress
and an increased understanding of the links between land, coastal and
ocean uses regulated by these policies, has led to positive outcomes for
both ocean health and human health. Unfortunately, instances of
well-resourced, large-scale, integrated management are not yet
widespread, and decision-making around the blue economy, human health
and the marine environment are often siloed (Alexander and Haward 2019;
Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019; Stephenson et al. 2019). As a result,
environmental degradation has continued virtually unabated leading to
few targets of SDGs 13 (Climate Action), 14 (Life Below Water) or 15
(Life on Land) being met by 2030.
Continued negative trends in environmental conditions, together with
rising inequality and vulnerability to food insecurity and disease,
contribute to worsening health outcomes for populations with lower
socio-economic status (Pickett and Wilkinson 2015; Raworth 2012).
Deleterious interactions between ocean and human health that have
occurred more frequently since 2020 include, for example, the increasing
intensity of natural disasters such as hurricanes (Knutson et al. 2013),
which in addition to their direct impacts (e.g. destruction of coastal
infrastructure) also negatively impact individual mental and
psychological well-being by precipitating anxiety, depression, grief and
trauma (Doherty and Clayton 2011). Natural disasters also have a
significant impact on shipping, disrupt supply chains, affect food
security, and impede access to medicines and other resources on which
human health relies (Manners-Bell 2017; McDonald 2018).
Changes in the composition and functioning of estuarine and nearshore
ecosystems due to coastal development and climate change, are
contributing to long-term declines in coastal marine fisheries (Halpern
et al. 2008; Lotze et al. 2019; Vitousek et al. 1997). The prevalence of
harmful algal blooms and heavy metals is increasingly affecting the
safety of seafood consumption (Cottrell et al. 2019; Fuentes-Gandara et
al. 2018; Purcell et al. 2007; Sellner and Rensel 2018; Zhang and Gui
2015). These impacts are significantly reducing gains towards reaching
SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). Furthermore, uneven distribution of access to
resources, and unequal power among nations and between social classes is
exacerbating inequality (SDG 10). Inequality is not only experienced in
terms of income and livelihoods; the development of ocean literacy,
mental health and stewardship are also negatively affected. For example,
a loss of access to marine environments, due to the privatisation of
coastlines, physically and emotionally disconnects some people from the
oceans (Bennett et al. 2015; Bennett et al. 2018b). These events are
leading to poor health outcomes (SDG 3) and in turn are exacerbating
environmental degradation (SDG 14 and 15)(Kite-Powell et al. 2008;
Pittman et al. 2019; White et al. 2016).
More Sustainable 2030 – ‘Living & Connecting’
In this scenario, efforts have been made to assess human progress and
well-being on a number of dimensions using well-being indicators that
complement GDP (e.g. Au and Karacaoglu 2018). As such, human welfare and
wellbeing have increased in most places since the start of the UN Decade
of Ocean Science, while environmental degradation has slowed.
Local communities are progressively showing increased engagement, and
building more sustainable relationships, with the marine environment
(Foley and Kistemann 2015; White et al. 2016). Greater participation in
activities including marine citizen science and community forums is
enhancing individual and community-level environmental literacy (Kelly
et al. in press). Engagement is also facilitated in novel ways through the
arts. Visual and performing arts play a major role in creating awareness
but importantly, benefiting mental and physical human health (e.g.
Dirksen 2019; Trihanondo and Endriawan 2019). There is also enhanced
knowledge exchange among scientists, community members, policy-makers
and marine resource managers (Fernández Otero et al. 2019; Forrester et
al. 2017; Kelly et al. 2019; Smith et al. 2019). Furthermore,
‘attachment’ to the oceans arising from engagement activities is
reducing environmentally-damaging behaviour among people (van Putten et
al. 2018b; Walker and Moscardo 2016). Engagement and the associated
increase in literacy is driving a renewed eagerness to support
environmental initiatives and positively impacts outcomes of SDG 13
(Climate Action), 14 (Life Below Water) and 15 (Life on Land) (Dean et
al. 2019). These changes are having the additional benefit of fostering
a greater sense of community (Ainsworth et al. 2019), helping to reduce
social challenges such as loneliness and improving mental health
outcomes (SDG 3), particularly in western nations (Downward et al. 2017;
Rayon-Viña et al. 2019; Wyles et al. 2016).
Slowing environmental degradation is reliant, in part, on the speed and
deliberate actions by which we are moving towards a circular economy.
The circular economy is key to ocean health because circular process in
manufacturing and industrial processes reduce extraction of resources
and negative impacts on the marine environment, particularly around
eco-engineering, renewable energy and offshore aquaculture (Box 2; Ellen
MacArthur Foundation 2019; Falk et al. 2019). A healthy ocean is
supported through strong transdisciplinary research and development
teams who lead a structured and careful expansion of industry into
offshore areas. These careful expansion are facilitated through for
instance, the production of multi-use platforms which provide renewable
energy, aquaculture, marine bio-resources and biotechnologies, maritime
transport and related services, in the same marine space (Marine South
East Ltd 2018; Novaglio et al. in review). These changes in ocean health have
knock-on benefits for human health via a number of avenues, from
improved food safety to aesthetic benefits of a healthy marine
environment. Furthermore, participation in the development of circular
industry practices and the use of resultant products may help
individuals to internalise the value and importance of ocean health, and
have it contribute to their own self-identity. This, in turn, has the
potential to shape attitudes and behaviours consistent with ocean
protection and enhancement.
Positive interactions between ocean and human health have strengthened
since 2020; emerging innovations are reducing pollutants entering the
oceans, minimising food waste, and have increased access to basic human
needs such as adequate nutrition and energy (Circulate Capital LLC 2019;
Willett et al. 2019; World Economic Forum 2017). There has also been an
increase in the consumption of nutritionally rich seafood by previously
food-insecure populations (Farmery et al. in review), reducing levels of
micronutrient deficiencies and associated health conditions such as
stunting and wasting (Hicks et al. 2019; Ruel et al. 2018). The result
of these trends is widespread attainment of a range of SDGs e.g. SDG 1
(No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation &
Infrastructure).
Sustainable expansion of the blue economy is facilitated by integrated
management across sectors. In the integrated management approach, the
focus is a ‘One Health’ framework, which explicitly on both human and
ocean health, and takes account of the feedbacks between them
(Stephenson et al. 2019; Wilcox et al. 2019). For example, an online
platform to facilitate sharing of information on harmful algal blooms
among both environmental and public health agencies (Centre for Disease
Control’s One Health Harmful Algal Bloom System -
https://www.cdc.gov/habs/ohhabs.html).
An enduring connection between human and ocean health is also ensured by
a strong commitment to precautionary approaches to development and
explicit consideration of social, economic and environmental trade-offs
in natural resource use decision-making (Singh et al. 2017).
Furthermore, standardized environmental impact assessments provide more
information, which allows for integrated decision-making and cumulative
impact assessment across sectors. For example, careful design and
placement of new industrial developments (e.g. multi-trophic aquaculture
and offshore industries) limits environmental impacts and reduces
transportation costs, while maximising the positive influence of these
developments on human health and well-being (SDG 3). As a result, there
have been significant gains made towards meeting goals and targets
focused primarily on the biosphere e.g. SDG 13 (Climate Action), 14
(Life Below Water) and 15 (Life on Land), which were, prior to 2021,
showing little progress and were of low priority for many
decision-makers (Cutter et al. 2014; GSS 2017).
In this scenario, environmental change still disproportionately affects
people of low socio-economic status (Pickett and Wilkinson 2015; Raworth
2012), and inequality remains unacceptably high. However, increases in
inequality have slowed since 2020 and have declined appreciably in some
locations (SDG 10). The harmful interactions between ocean and human
health that have strengthened since 2020 are largely of natural origin
(but linked to climate change). For example, the increasing intensity of
natural disasters such as hurricanes (Knutson et al. 2013) has a
significant impact on human mental and physical health in affected
regions. These events disrupt supply chains, affect food security,
shipping, psychological safety and access to medicines and other
resources on which human health has become dependent (Manners-Bell 2017;
McDonald 2018). However, the increasing intensity of natural disasters
and volatility in world markets for food and pharmaceutical products is
being met by a greater focus on building resilience within communities,
particularly among the disadvantaged and food insecure (BlueHealth 2019;
Moreno et al. 2019; Sadri et al. 2018). Thus, these communities have an
improved capacity to cope with adverse events while addressing
concomitant human health issues, positively impacting attainment of SDG
3 (Good Health & Well-being) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities &
Communities) (e.g. Vogel et al. 2016).
Exploring the drivers that influence these alternate futures
Here we have described two different futures for 2030 with respect to
the interactions between human and ocean health, informed by our
collective worldviews, perspectives and experiences. These futures are
based on 5 key drivers of change that will influence where we end up at
the close of the UN Decade of Ocean Science.
Worldview, decision-making context, and approach to
behaviour change
The first driver of change incorporates three aspects that influence
whether people can, and will, change their individual behaviours. Ourworld view (1) relates to how people perceive the world and value
their own health and that of the oceans. Our world view and values
directly shape attitudes which guide our individual decision-making and
behaviours, and are crucial in determining future outcomes (Goldberg et
al. 2018). The context in which decisions are made (2) will
indirectly influence behaviour change and determine future outcomes. For
example, within a policy context, political agendas, politics and public
support (among other things) influence the outcomes. At a practical
level, the types of policies and initiatives put in place (3) are
also driven by politics, and they will influence how behaviour change is
guided to achieve the desired outcomes. All three factors are important
as they affect individual and collective behaviours and influence how
feedbacks between ocean and society manifest (Klöckner 2013).
In the ‘Living & Connecting’ scenario, the strong feedbacks between
human health and environmental health are universally understood. For
example, the close links between biodiversity loss, poverty and health
is clear (UNEP 2015; UNEP 2019). In addition, there is a stronger focus
on the development and implementation of health and environmental
initiatives that target behaviour change at the community level. These
schemes build community cohesion and social capital, for example,
through engagement in beach clean-ups and citizen science projects. The
result is policy design, development and implementation that is focused
on encouraging community behaviour change that incentivises ocean
stewardship, builds community resilience, and focuses on changing social
norms to support pro-environmental behaviours (Cinner 2018; Faulkner et
al. 2018).
In contrast, in the ‘Command & (Out of) Control’ scenario, although the
interactions between human and ocean health are well recognised in
environmental, health, and sustainability disciplines, public
understanding of these interactions remains limited. Furthermore, policy
focusing on health and environmental issues employ a mixture of
approaches and are implemented at different scales. For example, in some
areas there is a focus on behaviour change initiatives that target the
community. However, such efforts are still not well co-ordinated or
linked, leading to piecemeal and inconsistent implementation (Bravo et
al. 2009; Nelms et al. 2017) which undermine the potential for
meaningful gains in this domain. In other areas, individuals are the
focus of behaviour change initiatives. These latter approaches are based
on behaviour change theories (e.g. the theory of planned behaviour) that
place responsibility for change at the level of the individual as
opposed to the collective, and assume personal self-efficacy can change
behaviours and outcomes (Nutbeam et al. 2010). However, outcomes of such
individual level campaigns do not reliably result in long-term behaviour
change at a population level, as it emphasises individualist rather than
communal ideals, and in many instances stigmatises individuals who have
not changed their behaviour leading to their marginalisation (Albarracín
et al. 2005; Davis et al. 2015; Michie and Johnston 2012). Furthermore,
these approaches do not develop community cohesion or build social
capital, such that the resilience of communities to cope with change in
the oceans may be low (Magis 2010; Wilson 2013).
Power and Agency
The second driver that we consider impacting future ocean and human
health outcomes focusses on the capacity to create change and the
capability to enact change. These apply at an individual and collective
level, and can influence policy at the local, national, regional and
international scale. We focus specifically on two dimensions; power and
agency. Agency refers to the means and ways in which individuals
can act (relying upon themselves only), or collective agency(when groups of people act for their collective selves). Powerrefers to the ways in which an individual or group of individuals can
act to influence others (Haugaard 2012). Power and agency are important
as they determine who can drive change, and consequently influences
whether negative or positive human and ocean health outcomes emerge.
In ‘Living & Connecting’, the decentralisation of power in governance
enables community level behaviour change initiatives (Cvitanovic et al.
2017). Community level initiatives increase community and social capital
and provide individuals with the capacity and tools to affect
environmental change and shape their own health outcomes (Ko et al.
2018). For example, marine planning and development employs strategies
to empower stakeholders, and discussions are facilitated for communities
to collectively debate their futures (Clarke and Flannery 2019).
Simultaneously, decentralisation of power may redistribute power away
from private corporations to other groups in the community.
Industry increasingly supports the view that poor social and
environmental management poses a significant business risk, which
incentivises environmental stewardship (Franks et al. 2014; Olson 2009).
These instances create a positive feedback loop, further empowering
individuals and communities (Cvitanovic and Hobday 2018). For Indigenous
people and communities, agency is supported by improved negotiating
power with parties involved in resource use activities on (or adjacent
to) the land or sea to which they are culturally connected. Favourable
changes in power relations and distribution enable the transmission of
Indigenous and local knowledge, and the ability of Indigenous peoples
and communities to manage biodiversity (Gilberthorpe and Hilson 2016;
Mustonen and Kontkanen 2019).
In ‘Command & (Out of) Control’, a few global corporations influence
local to global scale governance. These corporations dominate markets,
and exercise significant control over developments in science and
technology as well as political agendas (Blasiak et al. 2018; Folke et
al. 2019). This unbalanced power situation negatively impacts the
equitable distribution of resources and opportunities, with unfavourable
ecological impacts and human health outcomes (Hanna 2019; Suarez-Villa
2012). The increasing use of Social Licence to Operate (SLO) is an
indication that trust in (and legitimacy of) the formal regulation of
natural resource management continues to erode (van Putten et al.
2018a). Even though trust in the formal regulatory system may be eroded,
there are instances (typically at local scales) where communities
successfully influence government and industry decision-making processes
and affect industry actions (Harvey and Bice 2014; van Putten et al.
2018a).
In ‘Command & (Out of) Control’, large inequities in the capacity to
manage ocean and human health emerge among nations (Ottersen et al.
2014), due to imbalances in agency and power. Small island nations and
low-income countries have very little economic or political power and
are unable to redirect the impacts of pollution and climate change to
the (often wealthier) nations who are predominantly responsible (Akpan
and Bassey 2017). Similarly, low-income nations and disadvantaged
communities lose access to marine resources due to the international
expansion of the ‘Blue Economy’ (Cohen et al. 2019). For example,
industry demands for access and use of Indigenous land or sea (or areas
important to Indigenous people) for resource extraction, commodity
production, mining, transport, and energy infrastructure can seriously
challenge the rights, health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples
(Bozigar et al. 2016; Parlee 2015; Trigger et al. 2014). Dispossession
and disempowerment impacts traditional management, the transmission of
Indigenous and local knowledge, and the ability of Indigenous peoples
and communities to manage biodiversity (Gilberthorpe and Hilson 2016),
with negative outcomes for both ocean and human health at the local and
global level.
Human development and industry
Economic development, and industrial and urbanisation patterns and
trends comprise this third driver of human and ocean health
interactions. Human and industry development influences people’s access
to basic needs such as employment, energy and health care, which in turn
mediate their interactions with the ocean.
In ‘Living & Connecting’, significant efforts are made to assess human
progress and well-being on a number of different and contextually
relevant dimensions that do not replace, but instead complement, GDP
growth data (e.g. Au and Karacaoglu 2018). Reporting on multiple
indicators and dimensions of growth creates a positive feedback loop,
because it forces decision-makers to develop and implement policy
initiatives that take account of and integrate a broader suite of
interrelated considerations. This de-emphasises the focus on GDP growth
and re-focusses on accounting for non-renewable resource depletion,
irreversible biodiversity losses, and intergenerational equity. In
combination with shifts in the drivers described in previous sections,
innovation and provision of a range of marine resources such as
marine-derived medicines and energy, support a circular economy and a
transparent approach to manufacturing and service provision.
In ‘Command & (Out of) Control’, assessment of progress is largely
limited to existing trajectories of GDP (Raworth 2017) and the focus is
to optimise processes and revenues. This leads to disproportionate
benefits for large private corporations and the wealthy, but reduces the
resilience of the industry and communities to future change (Cox 2016;
Gibbs 2009), with likely negative environmental and human health
impacts. For example, through the loss of jobs and livelihoods and
subsequent negative impacts on mental well-being.
Food system
The fourth driver that we consider impacting human and ocean health is
directly related to terrestrial, aquaculture, and wild fisheries food
production systems, and associated supply chains. The structure of food
production systems affects all dimensions of food security (production,
availability, stability and utilisation) and directly impacts human
health (e.g. micronutrient deficiencies, malnutrition, obesity and
chronic disease and inequalities in health status disproportionately
affecting the poor). Ocean resource use and extraction directly affects
the health and resilience of marine environments. Critically, because
there are pervasive links between food production on land and at sea,
this driver is not just focused on marine-based food systems but
encompasses all food systems, crossing the land-sea boundary (Cottrell
et al. 2018; Halpern et al. 2019). A further inhibitor towards achieving
a sustainable relationship between human and ocean health in the BAU
scenario is that when populations are systematically disadvantaged and
can’t meet their basic physiological needs including food, their
capacity to engage with higher-level needs such as environmental
stewardship is undermined. Consistent with the hierarchy of motivation
proposed by Maslow (1943), in this scenario it is hard to enact
behaviours to mitigate long-term risks to food supply chains and ocean
health (behaviours incorporated in the self-actualisation step of the
hierarchy), if in the short-term there is not enough food on a
day-to-day basis, or if the only affordable food is that which
compromises sustainability goals (behaviours associated with meeting
basic physiological needs).
In ‘Living & Connecting’, there is a shift to nutritionally-sensitive
food policy and explicit recognition of the trade-offs and synergies
between environmental and nutritional objectives (Farmery et al. in review;
Hicks et al. 2019). For example, management interventions such as
multi-use marine protected areas are being designed and implemented to
successfully achieve both conservation and equitable food outcomes
(Aswani and Furusawa 2007). There are concerted efforts to disseminate
the lessons learnt from successful marine policy and management (e.g.
Cinner et al. 2016; Cvitanovic and Hobday 2018). Decision-makers
globally benefit from evidence-based information and more support for
management decisions from society at large. Moves towards a circular
economy are also positively influencing the sustainability of the global
food system, for example, via reduced food wastage (Parfitt et al. 2010)
and redirection of waste back into food production (Mo et al. 2018).
In ‘Command & (Out of) Control’, the emphasis remains on increasing
production in individual sectors, with considerably less focus on
integrated management across sectors and ‘circular’ management within
the food system. Sectoral management without integration creates
conflicts between different sectors vying for ocean space and increases
the prevalence of unanticipated shocks in the food system. Volatility in
food availability in certain regions has significant negative
consequences for moderately to severely food insecure parts of the world
(Cottrell et al. 2019; FAO 2019).
Lifestyle and connectedness to the oceans
The fifth driver of change in human and ocean health is people’s
personal and cultural connection to the oceans. Connections to the ocean
can occur, for example, via tourism, recreation, or an individual’s
sense of place (van Putten et al. 2018b). It is critical to consider
connections to the ocean because they impact all dimensions of human
health (Beute and de Kort 2014; Biedenweg et al. 2017; Frumkin et al.
2017; Marselle et al. 2019). Human connections to the ocean also impact
individual and collective environmental stewardship behaviours (Chambers
et al. 2019). Stewardship actions emerge as a result of the diversity of
worldviews, beliefs and values that individuals and communities hold in
relation to the ocean (Masterson et al. 2019).
In ‘Living & Connecting’, actions and activities that build a sense of
connection to the oceans are strongly valued by society. Furthermore,
environmental stewardship behaviour is viewed as an integral component
of a healthy individual (Moewaka Barnes and McCreanor 2019). For
example, there is an increase in social prescribing (non-medical
interventions and services designed to improve health behaviour) of
‘blue activities’ focused on exercise and conservation initiatives in
aquatic environments, leading to improved health and connection to
oceans across a range of demographics (Britton et al. 2018; Gibbons et
al. 2017). Similarly, the role of visual and performing arts to create a
connection is widely recognised and supported by government and the
community (Fryer 2017). These diverse activities help individuals
develop a sense of awe regarding the natural world, leading to an
increase in prosocial behaviour and collective action to support ocean
stewardship (Piff et al. 2015). This connection, combined with a
widespread understanding of the feedbacks between ocean health and human
health, drives a positive feedback loop (Figure 2).
In ‘Command & (Out of) Control’, people are less connected to the
ocean. People are inhibited from creating or maintaining connections
because access to the oceans may be limited through existing governance
arrangements (Bennett et al. 2018a), such as privatisation of coastlines
(Skladany et al. 2007) or designation of marine protected areas (Mascia
et al. 2010). Importantly, the lack of connection to the oceans has
significant implications for how society views the ocean as a driver of
human health (Masterson et al. 2019): society places more importance on
optimising the quantity and/or quality of resources gained from marine
systems rather than exhibiting stewardship behaviour towards the oceans
(Folke et al. 2011; Holling and Meffe 1996). Their interactions with the
marine environment are often resource intensive. For example, there is a
rise in high-end (but environmentally insensitive) tourism that caters
to a burgeoning middle class, and that does not engender a connection to
the ocean. The COVID-19 experience may add additional (yet unknown)
challenges for a tourism industry that will need to completely rebuild.
Action pathway to move towards ‘Living & Connecting’
Significant and transformational change will be needed to move the five
drivers that mediate the interactions between human and ocean health
away from the Business-as-Usual, ‘Command & (Out of) Control’
trajectory towards the more sustainable world of ‘Living & Connecting’.
We propose three foundations of change (bold text ) which are
fundamental precursors to achieving sustainable changes at the
individual, community, and policy level. The first foundation concerns marine citizenship , defined as “the rights and
responsibilities of an individual towards the marine environment” (p.
839 McKinley and Fletcher 2012). Marine citizenship arises from marine
education, a sense of personal responsibility for the health of the
marine environment, and a feeling of connection to the oceans (McKinley
and Fletcher 2010). A core principle of this foundation to change is
engagement for capacity building (Ika and Donnelly 2017; Selin et al.
2016). Building of capacity will be required across scales for the
second foundation of change: a more equitable distribution of
power. A more equitable distribution of power will mean that the
capacity to act (and the feeling of empowerment) is likely to be present
in a greater proportion of the population (Sinharoy and Caruso 2019).
With a more equitable distribution of power people will tend to
participate more in decision making processes, and in a more meaningful
way (Boyd 2002; Lockwood 2010; Tonelli et al. 2018), with the resultant
positive impacts at both the individual and societal level encouraging
ongoing participation in this way. Finally, the third
foundation: greater and more equitable access to resources and
opportunities , will contribute to a greater sense of agency among
currently disadvantaged individuals and communities. Equitable access to
resources goes hand in hand with the equitable distribution of power.
Both power and resource distribution must be guided by strong
foundations in the governance approach to provide certainty and build
trust (Lockwood 2010; Ratner et al. 2013).
We identified 80 actions (Extended Data 1) that are critical to ensure
these three foundations of change are achieved, and subsequently built
upon by individual, community, and policy initiatives that move us
towards our desirable ‘Living & Connecting’ scenario. To gain oversight
and bring clarity to the types of actions we have identified, we
categorise them into different groups, called ‘strategies’. These
strategies should be implemented successively over the UN Decade of
Ocean Science (2021-2030). Some of the actions within each strategy can
be implemented immediately (in the short-term) while others may require
some lead time or are dependent on other actions to precede them to take
effect. In some cases, ‘investment’ in an action has a longer-term
pay-off time (i.e. the money invested now will not return a positive
benefit for some time), whereas others have immediate perceivable
impacts and returns. More generally, an adaptive and reflexive approach
should be taken when implementing the actions as some feedback (i.e.
synergies) and timing issues are likely to arise. To gain insight into
the actions (across time and also in relation to the actors who will be
responsible for undertaking the actions) we provide a summary below (see
Extended Data 1 for a full list of actions).