ArticlePDF Available


Marine justice is presented as a bridging concept and opportunity for scholars, activists, and policy-makers to combine differing methods of knowledge production and communication to promote and deepen justice in an era of global environmental change, sea level rise, overfishing, ocean acidification, and other coastal and marine issues. We open with an exploration of the historical connections between the study of seascapes and the emergence and development of environmental justice. We then discuss five conceptual domains—space, time, knowledge, participation in decision-making, and enforcement—in which attention to marine environments resonates with and expands environmental justice framings. Using a series of examples to illustrate how environmental justice and marine issues converge in scholarship and activism, we argue that this coming-together of concepts creates new avenues for research and inquiry.
What is marine justice?
Jennifer A. Martin
&Summer Gray
&Eréndira Aceves-Bueno
&Peter Alagona
&Tammy L. Elwell
Angela Garcia
&Zach Horton
&David Lopez-Carr
&Jessica Marter-Kenyon
&Karly Marie Miller
Christopher Severen
&Teresa Shewry
&Becky Twohey
Published online: 3 April 2019
#AESS 2019
Marine justice is presented as a bridging concept and opportunity for scholars, activists, and policy-makers to combine differing
methods of knowledge production and communication to promote and deepen justice in an era of global environmental change,
sea level rise, overfishing, ocean acidification, and other coastal and marine issues. We open with an exploration of the historical
connections between the study of seascapes and the emergence and development of environmental justice. We then discuss five
conceptual domainsspace, time, knowledge, participation in decision-making, and enforcementin which attention to marine
environments resonates with and expands environmental justice framings. Using a series of examples to illustrate how environ-
mental justice and marine issues converge in scholarship and activism, we argue that this coming-together of concepts creates
new avenues for research and inquiry.
Keywords Climate .Environmental justice .Fishing .Oceans .Pollution .Marine environments
This essay connects two key multi-disciplinary themesthe
study of marine environments and the study of environmental
justicein order to name an ongoing conversation that has
been building in the environmental and ocean-related litera-
tures. Since the 1980s, environmental justice and marine stud-
ies emerged independently as important foci of scholarship,
activism, and policy. Both historically center around issues of
pollution, the uneven distribution ofcosts and benefits, power,
knowledge production, and representation, but with different
starting points. Environmental justice emerged in response to
toxic exposure as it relates to histories and practices of racial
and economic injustice. Marine studies originated in relation
to concerns over equity and the undemocratic decision-
making processes that relate to resource overharvesting and
other factors that alterand in many cases degradeocean
ecosystems once considered inexhaustible. More recently,
these two bodies of scholarship have increasingly come into
contact as a result of a growing awareness of the impacts of
peoples changing relationships with oceans over time.
To bridge these literatures, this paper highlights the concept
of marine justice, a term that has only recently made its way into
the scholarly literature (Widener 2018; Longo and Clark 2016),
and offers a discussion of some of the major thematic areas that
emerged from a multi-disciplinary discussion that took place
*Jennifer A. Martin
Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University,
Beaufort, NC 28516, USA
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University
of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
Center for Evolution and Medicine, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
Department of English, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education &
Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia PA,
Philadelphia 19106, USA
Department of English, University of California, Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
The Coral Reef Alliance, Oakland, CA 94612, USA
Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences (2019) 9:234243
over the course of a year-long Mellon-Sawyer seminar focused
on the topic of sea change at the University of California, Santa
Barbara between 2013 and 2014. The Mellon-Sawyer Seminar
program supports interdisciplinary and comparative research
that brings together faculty, visiting scholars, postdoctoral fel-
lows, and graduate students from the humanities, social sci-
ences, and related fields. As collaborators, we represent a vari-
ety of fields, including anthropology, ecology, economics, ge-
ography, history, law, literature, media studies, marine sciences,
and sociology. Because research on the oceans was so often a
multidisciplinary endeavor, a central goal of the seminar was the
identification of opportunities for integrating diverse thinking
about marine environments and the human cultures that depend
upon the sea for their survival (Estrada 2012). Together, we
posed the question BWhat is Marine Justice?^and worked
through the disciplinary tensions, possibilities, and conceptual
frameworks that this concept helps to inspire.
Our findings are presented in three parts: We begin by
explaining the historical connection between the emergence
and development of environmental justice concepts and the in-
creasing attention in marine studies to issues of equity. We then
use a series of examples to show the ways in which these two
literatures converge in scholarship and activism, highlighting
how Earths seascapes are fundamentally linked to questions
of environmental justice. In the final section of the paper, we
present the concept of marine justice and discuss five conceptual
domainsspace, time, knowledge, participation in decision-
making, and enforcementin which marine spaces come into
contact with and expand traditional environmental justice fram-
ings. These conceptual domains are not intended to be compre-
hensive, but are offered as starting points. We conclude with a
reflection on the importance of bringing scholars, activists, and
policy-makers together to combine differing methods of knowl-
edge production and communication to promote and deepen
justice in an era of global environmental change.
Environmental justice
The term Benvironmental justice^originated in the early
1980s, when scholars and activistsmostly in the United
States South and Midwestset out to understand and amelio-
rate the negative health effects experienced by poor people
and people of color as a result of their disproportionate expo-
sure to industrial, agricultural, and urban pollution (Pollack
and Grozuczak 1984; Urban Environmental Conference
1985; Gottlieb 1993; McGurty 1997,2007; United Church
of Christ and Commission for Racial Justice 1987). By the
late 1980s and early 1990s, scholars in international environ-
mental law had started a similar debate about the global com-
mons beyond state jurisdiction under the key term of Binter-
generational justice^(Brown Weiss 1989,1990;DAmato
1990). In 1991, the attendees of the First National People of
Color Environmental Leadership Summit authored their land-
mark BPrinciples of Environmental Justice,^which laid out a
17-point agenda for the growing environmental justice grass-
roots movement (Lee 1992). Three years later, the movement
acquired policy visibility when President Bill Clinton issued
Executive Order 12898 that required all federal agencies to
consider environmental justice concerns in all government
policy making (Mohai et al. 2009).
Environmental justice soon acquired several meanings. It
was a set of methodological tools that included ethnography,
spatial statistics, epidemiology, and citizen science (Taylor
2000; Mohai et al. 2009); it was a body of scholarly literature
composed mainly of place-based case studies (Bullard 1990;
Roberts and Toffolon-Weiss 2001); and it was a social move-
ment that aimed to improve the lives of ordinary people living
in risky or unhealthy environments (Faber 1998;Freudenberg
and Steinsapir 1992;Brulle2000). In all three of these areas,
there are concerns over procedural justice, which involves the
processes by which collective decisions are made, and distrib-
utive justice, which focuses on the allocation of benefits and
burdens in a society, and, more recently, justice as recognition,
which tracks the devaluation of some social groups through
everyday and institutional interactions and unequal enforce-
ment (Schlosberg 2007; Walker 2012).
By the early 1990s, scholars and activists far beyond the
USA had begun using the term to call attention not only to
local pollution and health problems, but also to a much
broader set of struggles against colonialism, dispossession,
modernization, neoliberalism, and globalization (Hallowes
1993; Friends of the Earth Scotland 1999;Adeola2000;
Nixon 2011; Steady 2009;Walker2009,2012,1
Westra and Lawson 2001; World Commission on
Environment and Development 1987). During the 2000s, en-
vironmental justice discourse expanded again, this time to
include climate justice (Roberts and Parks 2007;Dawson
2010;Cipletetal.2015;Harlanetal.2015). Although diverse
in their perspectives and goals, climate justice activists in gen-
eral argue that policies to address global climate change
should seek to protect the worlds most vulnerable people,
and that the costs of addressing climate change should be
fairly distributed based on culpability, impacts, ability to
pay, and other considerations (McKee 2012; Nixon 2011).
Despite the growth and diversification of environmental
justice scholarship, several key challenges have remained con-
sistent throughout its history (Pellow and Brulle 2005;Mohai
et al. 2009;Pellow2018). The first is a methodological ques-
tion about appropriate standards of evidence, including
distinguishing correlation from causation and intention from
negligence in claims of environmental injustice (Hamilton
1995; Banzhaf 2012). Some environmental justice scholars
continue to express concerns about the difficulty of scaling-
up from local case studies to broader theories of power and
politics (Benford 2005; Getches and Pellow 2002). And many
J Environ Stud Sci (2019) 9:234243 235
still worry about whether their field is doing enough to ame-
liorate persistent structural impediments, such as the difficulty
of obtaining legislative reform and judicial relief in response
to claims of environmental harm (Cole and Foster 2000;Sikor
and Newell 2014). Most recently, environmental justice schol-
ar David Pellow has suggested the need to extend environ-
mental justice to Critical Environmental Justice (CEJ) as an
interdisciplinary and multi-methodological framework that al-
lows for deepening environmental justices reach across spe-
cies and space (Pellow 2018).
Marine studies
In terms of their materiality, seascapes are incredibly complex
places. The worlds oceans are dynamic ecosystems charac-
terized by complex biophysical patterns of salinity, tempera-
ture, and water density that drive waves, currents, and tidal
systems thatin turn shaped the biota and habitats from local to
global scale. Efforts to understand the oceans have brought
discrete and sometimes competing disciplinary approaches to
marine studies that vary across chronological and national
contexts, using terms as different as Bthalassography, hydrog-
raphy, or oceanography^over the last 200 years (Anderson
and Rozwadowski 2016, 2). Of course, the study of the oceans
reaches much further back, in the Pacific Islands, for example,
for many thousands of years into the past (Salesa 2014;
DArcy 2008). Scholars in the humanities and social sciences
have long studied the oceans as important symbols; in the
classical antiquity of Rome and Greece, Oceanus was a figure
of great importance, appearing in the work of the poet Homer.
The question of equity in marine studies has a more recent
history. The term Bequity^emerged in the scholarly literature
in the early 1980s among political scientists and economists
(Young 1982; Hannesson 1985). Ecologists and other biolo-
gists have started to incorporate the concept more recently to
improve conservation planning, especially for fisheries
(Loomis and Ditton 1993; Halpern et al. 2013).
The impacts of fish harvesting date back hundreds of years
in some regions (Bolster 2012; Erlandson and Rick 2010;
Roberts 2013; Steinberg 2001). Before contact with
Europeans, indigenous peoples throughout the world
established elaborate systems governing the use of marine
spaces and resources, including mechanisms for resolving dis-
putes (Salesa 2014;DArcy 2008). Colonialism in the eigh-
teenth and nineteenth centuries disrupted many of these tradi-
tional systems by ushering in new customs, laws, and bureau-
cratic structures (Walker 2012; Wadewitz 2012). International
efforts to regulate marine commerce, navigation, mineral
rights, and crimes on the high seas over the twentieth century
culminated in the United Nations Conventions on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1958, 1960, 1973, and 1982. Although
the latest UNCLOS went into effect in 1994, its results were
often unequal and uneven among its 168 signatory parties (as
of 2018), as well as among non-party nations, including the
USA (Okereke and Charlesworth 2014).
Since World War II, overfishing has emerged as a central
problem for research and policy, as the capitalization, indus-
trialization, and globalization of fisheries have pushed many
stocks to the brink and threatened the human communities that
depend on them (Jackson 2010; Jackson et al. 2001). This has
presented numerous challenges related to managing coastal
and ocean areas, including the distributional effects of fisher-
ies policies (Loomis and Ditton 1993;GraingerandCostello
2016). The details are unique to each case, but the pattern is
familiar. In region after region, various parties have blamed
each other for the decline, while decision-makers have faced
intense political pressure to recover stocks without restricting
access (McEvoy 1986;Bolster2012; Hubbard 2014).
Enforcement is also a problem in many fisheries, exacerbating
management challenges and increasing the likelihood of so-
cial conflict (Wadewitz 2012; Roberts 2013). Although these
episodes usually have been treated as political stories, many
also involve legal and ethical claims involving both distribu-
tive and procedural justice (Finley 2011).
An increasingly important tool for managing fisheries is
ocean zoning. Indigenous communities and other local peo-
ples have long apportioned coastal and ocean space for partic-
ular groups or specific uses. Many of these arrangements
broke down during periods of colonization. By the mid-
twentieth century, they were replaced in many regions by
management programs that aimed to maintain what they
called Bmaximum sustainable yields^by regulating the
amount of resources harvested rather than by apportioning
space. Proposals for marine protected areas reemerged at the
1962 World Congress on National Parks, then accelerated in
the 1980s and 1990s (Gubbay 1995; McArdle et al. 2003).
Early results are promising, but researchers are still evaluating
the effectiveness of these types of ocean zoning strategies to
restore degraded resource stocks and establish fairer and more
sustainable approaches toresource management (Allison et al.
2012; Frazão Santos et al. 2014;Gustavssonetal.2014;
Kahmann et al. 2015; Kidd and Shaw 2014; Levine et al.
2015; Sinclair 1990; Wise 2014). What is clear is that dividing
up ocean space rearranges peoples relationships with marine
resources in ways that could have important consequences for
environmental justice.
Land use in coastal zones also profoundly shapes peoples
relationships with the sea. Rampant seaside construction, for
example, has resulted in severe impacts to coastal and near-
shore marine ecosystems and diminished public access to
shorelines, particularly among poor local residents squeezed
out by development (Kahrl 2015). There are many such cases,
but the global decline of mangrove forests offers one of the
most gripping examples. Mangrove forests are among the
worlds most productive ecosystems and serve as nurseries
236 J Environ Stud Sci (2019) 9:234243
for diverse fish and wildlife (Polidoro et al. 2010). Their
destructiondue to aquaculture, real estate development,
and other factorshas ignited a global movement spanning
from Latin America to Southeast Asia to Africa. In the words
of one Ecuadorian activist, the effort to save these coastal
forests is Bla lucha justa^: the just fight (Warne 2011,65).
Convergences between environmental justice
and marine studies
As scholars from varied disciplines, such as political science,
economics, sociology, and marine science, often discuss ma-
rine environments in prescriptive and academic terms, activ-
ists have seized on the tools ofcitizen science asan expression
of political empowerment. Activist groups spearheaded some
of the first studies of marine-related environmental justice
issues. As early as 1989, for example, the Center for
Environmental & Economic Justice worked to document
and combat the effects of pollution coming from US military
sites in coastal Mississippi, including the contamination of
fish harvested mainly by African Americans (Morse 2008).
More recently, the Gulf Coast has been the site of research
exploring how racial segregation and infrastructure develop-
ment have relegated African American populations to areas
that are disproportionately vulnerable to flooding, and has
hampered their ability to recover from disasters such as the
1927 Mississippi flood through Hurricane Katrina and beyond
(Hardy et al. 2017;Mizelle2014; Freudenberg et al. 2009;
Elliott and Pais 2006;Morse2008). Since the early 2010s,
activists and academics have developed together new tools
for collaboration, such as the EJAtlas to track a Bproject-based
campaign or place-based struggle,^including the Gulf of
Mexicos Deepwater Horizon spill (Martinez-Alier et al.
The convergence is more than a local story; however, it
also occurs simultaneously on a global scale. US policies
and markets have played important roles in shaping global
ocean environments for more than a century, but environmen-
tal justice issues related to marine pollution are by no means
limited to the USA. The oceans have served as both a conduit
and repository for the global waste trade across national
boundaries. Philadelphias municipal waste, for example, trav-
eled around the world for nearly 2 years on the vessel, Khian
Sea, illegally dumping toxic materials on a Haitian beach and
in the Indian Ocean (Pellow 2007). Although the 1989 Basel
Convention was adopted to stop the transnational movement
and disposal of toxics, especially from the global North to the
global South, the oceans became a receptacle for many kinds
of pollution and waste. During the Cold War, nuclear technol-
ogies not onlyshaped oceanographic research and internation-
al relations, but also affected many local communities in re-
gions such as the South Pacific (Hamblin 2005,2008). People
exposed to weapons testing and manufacturing are still coping
with the aftermath (Dé Ishtar 1994; Teaiwa 1994;Johnston
and Barker 2008). Meanwhile, activists seeking compensation
for the risks and losses imposed on them during the Cold War
face the challenge of organizing a movement among far-flung
communities living under diverse political regimes and deal-
ing with time-scales of exposure that span many generations
(Tate and Hull 1964;Kuletzetal.2002; Chappell 2005; Firth
2005; Maclellan 2005;Tetiarahi2005).
The concept of scale matters critically in both literatures,
because the oceans dynamic biophysical processes enable the
movement of toxic, anthropogenic substances away from their
point of origin. Consider the iconic marine-pollution case sur-
rounding Minamata disease. Named for the Japanese seaside
community where it was first identified, Minamata disease
appeared in the 1950s, when house cats in the area began
behaving bizarrely and dying from what was later shown to
be a neurological disorder caused by mercury poisoning.
Local residents, who also soon began suffering from the syn-
drome, attributed their symptoms to the accumulation of in-
dustrial pollution in local fish and shellfish. The owners of the
chemical factory responsible for the mercury emissions spent
considerable resources denying the links between human
health and marine toxins, and it took years for researchers to
determine the causes (Ekino et al. 2007;Walker 2010). This
case is often either used to illustrate problem solving in envi-
ronmental toxicology courses or framed by social theorists as
a hidden cost of Japanese industrialization (Almeida and
Stearns 1998). The Minimata case rarely has been understood
as a tale of environmental injustice or even a marine issue. It is
clear, however, that the politically marginalized local residents
of Minimata experienced disproportionate harms due to their
reliance on local ocean resources (Japan. Kankyōshō.Sōgō
KankyōSeisakukyoku 2013).
While the complex biophysical processes that facilitate
movement are critical to the convergence of environmental
justice and marine studies, just as important is the human
value of staying in place. This dilemma plays out in complex
ways when we consider the problem of climate change and
coastal development. In lesser-developed countries, the
poorest people in a societythose who contributed least to
climate change-induced extreme weather eventsare often
the most exposed to coastal storms, fires, and flooding.
Entire low-lying cities and countries, such as the Maldives
and Marshall Islands, are threatened by human-induced sea-
level rises to which they contributed very little (McKibben
1989; Pilkey and Young 2011). In more developed countries,
however, the opposite is often the case: the wealthiest mem-
bers of the society often have the most assets exposed to loss
or damage in coastal zones (Nicholls et al. 2008;Steinberg
2014). However, just because it is the wealthy who are the
most immediately at risk does not mean that there will be an
absence of environmental justice issues. For example, when a
J Environ Stud Sci (2019) 9:234243 237
debris flow hit the wealthy coastal community of Montecito in
southern California in 2018, immigrant families employed in
service jobs were disproportionately impacted in terms of loss
of life and income, many of whom were forced to leave the
area before aid could be allocated. The climate-related fire that
spurred the debris flow was also hardest felt by farm workers
in Ventura and Oxnard in the neighboring region, who were
exposed to extremely hazardous levels of particulate matter.
Furthermore, coastal armaments and retaining walls built to
protect valuable seaside properties at the wildland-urban in-
terface may increase risk to other nearby sites by altering the
flow of water and sediment. The insurance and infrastructure
costs of protecting such assets are often born only partly by
property owners, with the rest of society also contributing.
And although the popular media often treats climate change
and sea-level rise as a global phenomenon, diverse local fac-
tors will shape risks in particular places, with complex conse-
quences for the people who live in these increasingly vulner-
able communities (Strauss et al. 2012; Farbotko 2010).
Concepts for marine justice
As the above examples suggest, marine spaces and resources
involve a range of complex environmental justice issues. In
fact, oceans are inseparable from any and all core
environmental justice concerns that may originate in
terrestrial or other settings. Many of these issues are not
new, but scholars and marine resource managers only
recently have begun to conceptualize them as justice issues.
For example, environmental sociologist Patricia Widener
(2018) has drawn attention to the possibilities and limitations
of marine justice, building on and expanding the work of
Longo and Clark (2016).
In this section, we expand on the concept of marine justice
and explain why applying key methods, concepts, andinsights
from the environmental justice literature to marine spaces will
not be as simple as merely shifting the thematic focus of such
research from turf to surf.
Until recently, the vast majority of environmental scholarship
has involved local, place-based case studies in terrestrial en-
vironments. The oceans, however, operate on spatial scales so
vast and deep that they do not easily conform to this approach.
Although all studies of human-environment relations must
include both biophysical processes and social practices, the
spatial configuration of marine environments differs so dra-
matically from that of terrestrial environments that they often
require a different sense of scale (Harvey 1996). Ocean spaces
are incredibly expansive and, unlike the atmosphere, are com-
prised of a fluid dense enough to suspend most human and
animal bodies. And yet, almost all of the ocean is inaccessible
to humans, except for the most elaborately supported and
equipped people. As such individuals descend, they encounter
alien environments with immense pressure, few fixed land-
marks, and where light and sound behave differently, altering
their sense of space and requiring different assumptions about
their sensory perceptions (Alaimo 2013). As the geographer
Philip Steinberg observes, the four dimensional nature of the
oceanswhich includes not only time, width, and breadth,
but also depthrenders any human encounter with marine
environments Bdistanced and partial^(Steinberg 2013,156).
Understanding the oceans in this way has at least three key
implications for studies of environmental justice there. First,
although many people live close to the oceans, few havedirect
access to them beyond the near shore and below the surface
(United Nations Environment Program 2012). Second, the
individuals and institutions with the resources to enter to such
spaces have enjoyed more or less open access. The result is
that some people have been able to reap disproportionate ben-
efits from the oceans, while others nearby have benefited little
and have little say in ocean governance. Finally, since the
oceans are a fluid medium, they present challenges to tradi-
tional conceptions of environmental justice. Most place-based
environmental justice case studies rely on a function of prox-
imity to, or position downstream of, the source of the risk.
Pollution originating thousands of miles away, often from
non-point-sources, can negatively affect people who use
coastlines and ocean resources, and those who consume these
resources can experience dangerous exposures even if they
live nowhere close to the emission or extraction sitesor even
the ocean itself (Pilkey and Young 2011). Studying environ-
mental justice issues related to marine environments thus re-
quires a more complex, multifaceted conception of space than
terrestrial, place-based environmental justice scholarship.
For much of human history, many people believed, or at least
acted as if, the oceans were inexhaustible (Roberts 2013). In
an address to the 1883 London International Fisheries
Exhibition, for example, one scientist contended Bin relation
to our present modes of fishing, a number of the most impor-
tant sea fisheries are inexhaustible,^in spite of the contrary
testimony of contemporary fishers, fishery inspectors, ship-
pers, and marketers (Hubbard 2014, 366). People could over-
harvest whale populations, block the pathways of migratory
fish, or pollute estuaries, but these were only temporary local
or regional phenomena. Globally, the oceans were too vast
and too deep for people to fundamentally alter them. Over
the past generation, however, environmental historians and
historical ecologists have revealed a different story: one in
which myriad regional accounts, combined with the broader
238 J Environ Stud Sci (2019) 9:234243
scale climatic changes of the past century, add up to a global
ocean decline (Jackson 2010;Bolster2012).
Beyond these narratives of environmental change, ocean
environments present biophysical challenges to terrestrial con-
ceptions of time. All earth systems include complex feedback
loops and time lags. In the oceans, however, this problem
takes on a particular valence. For example, thermal inertia,
or the slow pace at which seawater rises in temperature as it
absorbs and distributes atmospheric heat, results in a time lag
between yesterdays carbon emissions, todaysincreasing
temperatures, and tomorrows sea level rises. Such lags pres-
ent difficult questions about intergenerational justice, as well
as for people with uneven resources to cope with change,
including capacities to migrate, protect coastlines, define sea
level rise, and shape institutional responses to claims of rights
and redress. Such long-term, large-scale changes, if not ad-
dressed at appropriate scales, invoke what the literary scholar
Rob Nixon has termed Bslow violence^: harm dispersed
across space and time in ways that are difficult to grasp but
can have profound social consequences (Nixon 2011).
It is often said that scientists know more about outer space
than they do about the deep oceans. In fact, people have long
explored, interpreted, and imagined the oceans, developing
rich local cultural and intellectual traditions that continue to
shape their interactions with the sea (Salesa 2014; Te Punga
Somerville 2012;Dening1980,2004). It is true, however, that
marine environments present unique logistical and technical
challengesfor those trying to understand them from a modern,
scientific perspective (Rozwadowski and Van Keuren 2004).
For the oceans, this scientific tradition only really dates
from the mid-nineteenth century. As a result of his work on
the US Exploring Expedition (18381842), for example,
James Dwight Dana developed the first systematic theory
about the geological forces that created the Pacific basin
(Igler 2013). The first successful trans-Atlantic cables were
laid in 1858 and 1866 in depths up to 3 miles and required
more intensive and systematic methods of mapping the sea
floor (Rozwadowski 2005; Starosielski 2015). Commerce,
war, and technologyincluding stable platforms, deep sea
submersibles, underwater cameras, boats, and sonarhave
played central roles in shaping marine science (Deacon
1997; Mills 1989,2009; Reidy and Rozwadowski 2014;
Rozwadowski 2014). And yet, marine research remains
fragmented, with divergent views about such basic questions
as the relationships between science and the state, the contri-
butions of research to resource exploitation, the roles of theo-
retical versus applied work, and the need for social science
and humanities perspectives as well as the importance of tra-
ditional knowledges and meaning cultivated from the oceans
smallest living organisms (Rozwadowski 2005; Hubbard
All of this points to a crucial question: How can scholars,
activists, and policy-makers mobilize such diverse,
fragmented, technical,and expensive knowledge to contribute
to environmental justice? Upstreaming offers a possible solu-
tion. In this view, environmental justice scholars should be
invited into shaping research projects from their
conceptioninstead of as an Boutreach^component or after-
thought, which is too often the case in collaborations between
natural and social scientists. Engaging in this way would result
in new research agendas, and begin to address our gap in
knowledge about what the filmmaker and artist Allan Sekula
called the oceansBForgotten Spaces^(Dawson 2013; Sekula
and Burch 2010). An outstanding example is The Superstorm
Research Lab, which has created an online forum for exchang-
ing knowledge about environmental justice and resilience
research-lab). In the white paper, The Tale of Two Sandys,
scholars from the lab analyze the uneven impacts of the
storm through research into New York Cityspoverty,
housing, employment, infrastructure, and social services,
revealing the unequal levels of access and risks experienced
by residents of this low-lying coastal metropolis (Dawson
2010; Superstorm Research Lab 2013).
Participation in decision-making
One of the central contributions of environmental justice is
its emphasis on the role of fair participation, sometimes
referred to as procedural justice, in environmental deci-
sion-making. The vast, fluid, and dynamic nature of the
oceans, their relatively open access, and the international
character of their governance suggest that marine systems
should pose great challenges for inclusive decision-mak-
ing. Many ocean spaces have a long history of marine
environmental decision-making that includes traditional
community-based systems, colonial bureaucratic authority,
scientific management programs, and stakeholder-based
processes (McEvoy 1986). Today, political processes for
ocean environments often include elements of each.
Various combinations of these approaches have proven
useful for fishery conservation programs and marine spatial
planning. The California Marine Life Protection Act of 1999,
for example, initiated a statewide process that, despite signif-
icant resistance, ultimately led to the establishment of dozens
of marine protected areas. Yet, such approaches seem to have
little potential for addressing global environmental problems,
such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification. Public policies
to confront these issues have often failed to incorporate di-
verse perspectives, and have often sought to protect valuable
coastal assets instead of resource poor communities. Even
some political efforts intended to protect vulnerable people
J Environ Stud Sci (2019) 9:234243 239
or nations (Barnett and Adger 2003) can unintentionally mar-
ginalize already underrepresented voices (Farbotko and
Lazrus 2012). In the extreme case of environmental refugees,
many of which come from coastal regions, the primary objec-
tive is of course protecting lives; much less concern is usually
given to maintaining livelihoods, memories, cultures, and
mental health. With the loss of communitieseven perhaps
the loss of entire vulnerable low-lying nationsit remains
unclear whether there can ever be justice.
Regulatory regimes at sea differ dramatically from those on
land. The high seas are regulated through international, mul-
tilateral treaties, but individual countries maintain claims to
the sovereignty of territorial seas and hold rights to contiguous
zones, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves.
Beyond these near-shore realms lay the vast open ocean,
whose relatively lax regulatory and enforcement structures
transcend the nation-state (Steinberg 1999,2001). The un-
evenness, complexity, overlapping, and multilayered charac-
ter of ocean regulatory regimes create barriers not only for
effective environmental management, but also for socially
and economically marginalized communities to draw on pub-
lic institutions for assistance.
The historic weakness of ocean governance, compared
with the terrestrial governance imposed by nation-states with-
in their boundaries, has led many observers to describe ocean
spaces as relatively open access (Liu et al. 2007;Ostrom2007;
Ostrom et al. 1999). Among economists, this has often led to
calls for clearer and more enforceable property rights to ma-
rine space and resources, which they believe would contribute
to more rational management of scarce resources. All legal
regimes and property rights arrangements depend on the
ability and willingness of governments to enforce regula-
tions, but this has proven much more difficult in marine
than terrestrial environments. Political borders, which are
essential for regulatory enforcement, are difficult to mark
and enforce in ocean spaces, and both commercial and
artisanal users may easily violate them (Wadewitz 2012).
The borders themselves are also frequently contested, and
different countries establish the legality of traditional
claims to resources in very different ways (Carey 2010;
McEvoy 1986). New claims may challenge older legal
structures, and many indigenous communities are seeking
to revive even older customary arrangements. This is par-
ticularly evident in remote coastal and island communities,
where regulations governing marine resources are often
imposed by far-away legislative bodies or bureaucratic
agencies descended from colonial governments or
representing newer postcolonial authoritarian power struc-
tures (Shewry 2015;Warne2011).
Concluding reflections
We conclude this framework with a call to work together to
use marine justice as a guiding principal to enrich our schol-
arship and address some of the most daunting environmental
challenges we face today as citizens of the world. We believe
that building community within and beyond the academy as
well as the core intellectual values of engagement and humil-
ity is worth defending now more than ever. Based on our
experiences at the University of California, that begins strate-
gically with sitting in a room together and a commitment to
meet on a regular basis with invited guests. One of the most
important insights we learned from eachother was the difficult
but rewarding opportunity to reflect on the research we do.
The oceanscomplexity and the many ways to study them
became a recurring theme as we discussed what some of us
called evidence and others used the term data or sources. We
learned that it is easier to issue calls for interdisciplinary or
transdisciplinary collaboration about the oceans than the hard
work of actually doing so. The concepts of space, time,
knowledge, participation in decision-making, and enforce-
ment started to emerge as critical links that brought together
ongoing conversations about the oceans and justice in the
academy and the rest of the world.
The five key concepts operated as links but they also
showed us the fissures and different assumptions within the
disciplines of our group members. Here, we must acknowl-
edge the very real challenges of marine justice scholarship and
activism. Through a self-reflexive process, we learned that
while we all cared about marine issues in scholarship and
activism, we sometimes stumbled when it came to talking to
each other. For example, we had one presenter who studied
some of the local indigenous groupstendency to overharvest
particular marine organisms over hundreds of years with the
result of a simplification and impoverishment of local marine
ecosystems, but was unable to capture much social differenti-
ation within this community over many generations of human
life spans. What counted as marine justice in this instance was
instructive if frustrating at the time. We struggled over the
assumptions about the hierarchies of disciplines and their
methods of quantitative, qualitative, and interpretive ap-
proaches. The differences and often-unspoken aversions to
certain methodologies may have originated in personal expe-
rience and disciplinary training/acculturation, but were stub-
bornly resistant to being let go of in the present moment.
Through trial and error, we discovered some ways to work
through the challenges of bridging scholarship around marine
justice together. After many weeks, one participant posed a
trenchant question about representation, especially about in-
digenous peoples in the various Pacific worlds, whose voices
we had thus far neglected. BWho should be in the room? Who
is missing?^another participant elaborated. BWhose voice
needs to be heard here?^We suggest a process of similar
240 J Environ Stud Sci (2019) 9:234243
self-reflexivity among scholars and activists who are commit-
ted to marine justicea grounding activity not only about
core values and methods but an acknowledgement of our po-
sitions of privilege.
Writing this article was another way to work through the
challenges of marine justice. We had to meet frequently and
intensely, but we tried to balance this engagement with a
change of scenery. We took a trip to Santa Cruz Island in the
Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary. We ate fish and
other foods from the sea. We socialized. We brought decision
makers to the table. But ultimately we spent time together
meditating on our key questions over terms, methods, argu-
mentation,and what those thingsactually did out in the world.
It was these conversations and investigations into the real-
word applicationsanswering what was actually at stake with
marine justicethat sustained us. We believe that this experi-
ence is worth sharing with the larger community of scholars
and activists as well as those in decision-making and enforce-
ment. We are living through a moment of profound alienation
from each other, the ocean, and nature more generally. The
threats and crimes are manifold: death of coral reefs, loss of
access to food, drowning of vulnerable communities to sea-
level rise, and silencing of voices from around the worlds
oceans. The oceans shape us in so many ways just as we shape
the oceans through industrialization, transportation, science,
recreation, oxygen, resource harvesting, heritage, and es-
thetics. The oceans are worth defending. If we ignore marine
justice, we risk losing something sacred as well. We believe
that marine justice is not only an intellectual position worth
defending but also one worth celebrating.
Acknowledgments The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Sawyer
Seminar, The Institute for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research
and The Interdisciplinary Humanities Center at the University of
California, Santa Barbara, David Pellow, and all of our seminar visitors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Disclaimer The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia orthe Federal Reserve System. Any errors oromis-
sions are the responsibility of the authors.
Adeola F (2000) Cross-national environmental injustice and human rights
issues: a review of evidence in the developing world. Am Behav Sci
Alaimo S (2013) Violet Black. In: Cohen JJ (ed) Prismatic ecology:
ecotheory beyond green. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, pp 233251
Allison EH, Ratner BD, Åsgård B, Willmann R, Pomeroy R, Kurien J
(2012) Rights-based fisheries governance: from fishing rights to
human rights. Fish Fish 13(1):1429
Almeida P, Stearns L (1998) Political opportunities and local grassroots en-
vironmental movements: the case of Minamata. Soc Probl 45:3761
Anderson K (2006) Does history count? Endeavor 30:150155
Anderson K, Rozwadowski H (eds) (2016) Soundings and crossings:
doing science at sea, 18001970. Science History Publications,
Sagamore Beach, MA
Banzhaf HS (2012) The political economy of environmental justice.
Stanford Economics and Finance, an imprint of Stanford
University Press, Stanford
Barnett J, Adger WN (2003)Climate dangers and atoll countries. Climate
Change 61:321337
Benford R (2005) The half-life of environmental justice frame: innova-
tion, diffusion, and stagnation. In: Pellow D, Brulle R (eds) Power,
justice, and the environment: a critical appraisal of the environmen-
tal justice movement. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 3754
Bolster WJ (2012) The mortal sea: fishing the Atlantic in the age of sail.
Belknap Press, Cambridge
Brown Weiss E (1989) In fairness to future generations: international law,
common patrimony, and intergenerational equity. United Nations
University, Tokyo
Brown Weiss E (1990) Our rights and obligations to future generations
for the environment. Am J Int Law 84:198207
Brulle, RJ (2000) Agency, democracy, and nature: the U.S. environmental
movement from a critical theory perspective. MITPress, Cambridge
Bullard RD (1990) Dumping in dixie. Westview, Boulder
Carey M (2010) In the shadow of melting glaciers: climate change and
Andean society. Oxford University Press, New York
Chappell D (2005) In quest of dialogue on a Bhot^subject. Contemp Pac
Ciplet D, Roberts JT, Khan MR (2015) Power in a warming world: the
new global politics of climate change and the remaking of environ-
mental inequality. MIT Press, Cambridge
Cole L, Foster S (2000) From the ground up: environmental racism and
the rise of the environmental justice movement. New York
University Press, New York
DArcy P (2008) The people of the sea: environment, identity and history
in Oceania. University of Hawaii, Honolulu
DAmato A (1990) Do we owe a duty to future generations to preserve
the global environment? Am J Int Law 84:190198
Dawson A (2010) Climate justice: the emerging movement against green
capitalism. South Atl Q 109:313338.
Dawson A (2013) How we forgot the sea. Soc Text Retrieved from http://
Accessed 27 Mar 2019
Deacon M (1997) Scientists and the sea, 16501900: a study of marine
science. Ashgate, Brookfield
Dé Ishtar Z (1994) Daughters of the Pacific. Spinifex Press, North
Dening G (1980) Islands and beaches: discourse on a silent land,
Marquesas, 17741880. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu
Dening G (2004) Beach crossings: voyaging across times, cultures, and
self. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
Ekino S, Susa M, Ninomiya T, Imamura K, Kitamura T (2007) Minamata
disease revisited: an update on the acute and chronic manifestations
of methyl mercury poisoning. J Neurol Sci 262:131144
Elliott JR, Pais J (2006) Race, class, and hurricane Katrina: social differ-
ences in human responses to disaster. Soc Sci Res 35:295321
Erlandson JM, Rick T (2010) Archaeology meets marine ecology: the
antiquity of maritime cultures and human impacts on marine fisher-
ies and ecosystems. Annu Rev Mar Sci 2:231251
Estrada, A (2012) UCSB receives $175,000 grant for seminar on com-
parative study of cultures. Current.
study-cultures. Accessed 07 Feb 2019
J Environ Stud Sci (2019) 9:234243 241
Faber D (ed) (1998) The struggle for ecological democracy: environmen-
tal justice movements in the United States. Guilford, New York
Farbotko C (2010) Wishful sinking: disappearing islands, climate refu-
gees and cosmopolitan experimentation. Asia Pac Viewp 51:4760
Farbotko C, Lazrus H (2012) The first climate refugees? Contesting glob-
al narratives of climate change in Tuvalu. Glob Environ Chang 22:
Finley C (2011) All the fish in the sea: maximum sustainable yield and the
failure of fisheries management. University of Chicago Press,
Firth S (2005) A comment on BThe Nuclear Issue in the South Pacific^.
Contemp Pac 17:359362
Frazão Santos C, Domingos T, Ferreira MA, Orbach M, Andrade F
(2014) How sustainable is sustainable marine spatial planning?
Part Ilinking the concepts. Mar Policy 49:5965
Freudenberg W et al (2009) Catastrophe in the making: the engineering of
Katrina and the disasters of tomorrow. Island Press, Washington, DC
Freudenberg N, Steinsapir C (1992) Not in our backyards: the grassroots
environmental movement. In: Dunlap R, Mertig A (eds) The US
environmental movement, 19701990. Taylor and Francis,
Washington, DC, pp 2738
Friends of the Earth Scotland (1999) The campaign for environmental
justice. Friends of the Earth Scotland
Getches D, Pellow D (2002) Beyond traditionalenvironmental justice:
how large a tent? In: Mutz K, Bryner G, Kenney D (eds) Justice and
natural resources: concepts, strategies, and applications. Island
Press, Washington DC, pp 330
Gottlieb R (1993) Forcing the spring: the transformation of the American
environmental movement. Island Press, Washington, DC
Grainger C, Costello C (2016) Distributional effects of the transition to
property rights in a common pool resource. Mar Resour Econ 31:1
Gubbay, S (1995) Marine protected areas: past, present and future. In:
Gubbay, S (ed) Marine protected areas: principles and techniques for
management. Springer Netherlands, pp. 114
Gustavsson M, Lindström L, Jiddawi NS, de la Torre-Castro M (2014)
Procedural and distributive justice in a community-based managed
marine protected area in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Mar Policy 46:91100
Hallowes D (ed) (1993) Hidden faces: environment, development, jus-
tice: South Africa and the global context. Earthlife Africa
Distributed by Russel Friedman Books, Scottsville, South Africa
Halpern B et al (2013) Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of
inherent, trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and con-
servation. PNAS 110:62296234
Hamblin J (2005) Oceanographers and the cold war: disciples of marine
science. University of Washington Press, Seattle
Hamblin J (2008) Poison in the well: radioactive waste in the oceans at
the dawn of the nuclear age. Rutgers University Press, New
Hamilton JT (1995) Testing for environmental racism: prejudice, profits,
political power? J. Policy Anal Manag 14(1):107132
Hannesson R (1985) Inefficiency through government regulations: the
case of Norways fishery policy. Mar Resour Econ 2:115141
Hardy DR, Milligan RA, Heynen N (2017) Racial coastal formation: the
environmental injustice of colorblind adaptation planning for sea-
level rise. Geoforum 87:6272
Harlan S, Pellow D, Roberts JT, Bell SE, HoltW, Nagel J (2015) Climate
justice and inequality. In: Dunlap R, Brulle R (eds) Climate change
and society: sociological perspectives. Oxford University Press,
New York, pp 127163
Harvey D (1996) Justice, nature and the geography of difference.
Blackwell, Cambridge
Helmreich S (2009) Alien Ocean: anthropological voyages in microbial
seas. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
Hubbard J (2014) In the wake of politics: the political and economic
construction of fisheries biology, 18601970. Isis 105:364378
Igler D (2013) The great ocean: pacific worlds from captain cook to the
gold rush. Oxford University Press, New York
Ingersoll KA (2016) Waves of knowing: a seascape epistemology. Duke
University Press, Durham
Jackson JBC (2010) The future of the oceans past. Philos T Roy Soc B
Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, Bourque
BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke R, Erlandson J, Estes JA, Hughes TP,
Kidwell S, Lange CB, Lenihan HS, Pandolfi JM, Peterson CH,
Steneck RS, Tegner MJ, Warner RR (2001) Historical overfishing
and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Sci 293:629637
Japan. Kankyōshō.SōgōKankyōSeisakukyoku (2013) Lessons from
Minamata disease and mercury management in Japan
Johnston BR, Barker HM (2008) Consequential damages of nuclear war:
the Rongelap report. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA
Kahmann B, Stumpf KH, Baumgärtner S (2015) Notions of justice held
by stakeholders of the Newfoundland fishery. Mar Policy 62:3750
Kahrl A (2015) Fear of an open beach: public rights and private interests
in 1970s coastal Connecticut. J Am Hist 102:433462
Kidd S, Shaw D (2014) The social and political realities of marine spatial
planning: some land-based reflections. ICES J Mar Sci J Cons 71:
Kuletz V, Adamson J, Evans MM, Stein R (2002) The movement for
environmental justice in the Pacific islands. In: The environmental
justice reader: politics, poetics, and pedagogy. University ofArizona
Press, Tucson, pp 125142
Lee C (ed) (1992) The first national people of color environmental leadership
summit, the Washington Court on Capital Hill, Washington, DC,
October 2427, 1991: proceedings. The Commission, New York
Levine AS, Richmond L, Lopez-Carr D (2015) Marine resource manage-
ment: culture, livelihoods, and governance. Appl Geogr 59:5659
Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell AN,
Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW (2007)
Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:
Longo SB, Clark B (2016) An ocean of troubles: advancing marine so-
ciology. Soc Probl 63:463479
Loomis DK, Ditton RB (1993) Distributive justice in fisheries manage-
ment. Fisheries 18:1418
Maclellan N (2005) The nuclear age in the Pacific islands. Contemp Pac
Martinez-Alier J, Temper L, Del Bene D, Scheidel A (2016) Is there a
global environmental justice movement? J Peasant Stud 43:731755
McArdle D et al (2003) California marine protected areas: past and pres-
ent. California Sea Grant College Program. University of California,
La Jolla
McEvoy AF (1986) The fishermans problem: ecology and law in the
California fisheries, 18501980. Cambridge University Press,
McGurty EM (1997) From NIMBY to civil rights: the origins of the
environmental justice movement. Environ Hist 2:301323
McGurty EM (2007) Transforming environmentalism: Warren county,
PCBs, and the origins of environmental justice. Rutgers University
Press, New Brunswick
McKee Y (2012) Of survival: climate change and uncanny landscape in
the photography of Subhankar Banerjee. In: Sussman H (ed)
Impasses of the post-global: theory in the era of climate change,
vol 2. Open Humanities Press, Michigan
McKibben B (1989) The end of nature. Random House, New York
Mills E (1989) Biological oceanography: an early history, 18701960.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Mills E (2009) The fluid envelope of our planet: how the study of ocean
currents became a science. University of Toronto Press, Toronto
Mizelle R (2014) Backwater blues: the Mississippi flood of 1927.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
242 J Environ Stud Sci (2019) 9:234243
Mohai P, Pellow D, Roberts JT (2009) Environmental justice. Annu Rev
Environ Resour 34:405430
Morse R (2008) Environmental justice through the eye of hurricane
Katrina. Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Health
Policy Institute, Washington, DC
Nicholls R, Hanson S, Herweijer C, Patmore N, Hallegatte S, Corfee-
Morlot J, Château J, Muir-Wood R (2008) Ranking port cities with
high exposure and vulnerability to climate extremes. Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris
Nixon R (2011) Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Okereke C, Charlesworth M (2014) Environmental and ecological jus-
tice. In: Betsill M, Hochstetler, Stevis D (eds) Advances in interna-
tional environmental politics. Palgrave Macmillian, New York, pp
Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. P
Natl Acad Sci USA 104:1518115187
Ostrom E, Burger J, Field CB, Norgaard RB, Policansky D (1999)
Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science
Pellow D (2007) Resisting global toxics: transnational movements for
environmental justice. MIT Press, Cambridge
Pellow D (2018) What is critical environmental justice? Polity Press,
Pellow D, Brulle R (2005) Power, justice and environment: a critical
appraisal of the environmental justice movement. MIT Press,
Pilkey OH, Young R (2011) The rising sea. Island Press, New York
Polidoro BA, Carpenter KE, Collins L, Duke NC, Ellison AM, Ellison
JC, Farnsworth EJ, Fernando ES, Kathiresan K, Koedam NE,
Livingstone SR, Miyagi T, Moore GE, Nam VN, Ong JE,
Primavera JH, Salmo SG, Sanciangco JC, Sukardjo S, Wang Y,
Yong JWH (2010) The loss of species: mangrove extinction risk
and geographic areas of global concern. PLoS One 5(4):e10095
Pollack S, Grozuczak J (1984) Reagan, toxics, and minorities: a policy
report. Urban Environment Conference, Washington, DC
Reidy M, Rozwadowski H (2014) The spaces in between: science, ocean,
empire. Isis 105:338351
Roberts C (2013) The ocean of life: the fate of man and the sea. Penguin
Books, New York
Roberts JT, Parks BC (2007) A climate of injustice: global inequality,
north-south politics, and climate change. MIT Press, Cambridge
Roberts JT, Toffolon-Weiss MM (2001) Chronicles from the environmen-
tal justice frontline. Cambridge University Press, New York
Rozwadowski H (2005) Fathoming the ocean: the discovery and explo-
ration of the deep sea. Belknap Press, Cambridge
Rozwadowski H (2014) Introduction. Isis 105:335337
Rozwadowski H, Van Keuren D (eds) (2004) The machine in neptunes
garden: historical perspectives on technology and the marine envi-
ronment. Science History Publications, Sagamore Beach, MA
Salesa D (2014) The Pacific in indigenous time. In: Armitage D, Bashford
A (eds) Pacific histories: ocean, land, people. Palgrave Macmillan,
New York, pp 3152
Schlosberg D (2007) Defining environmental justice: theories, move-
ments, and nature. Oxford University Press, New York
Sekula, A, and Burch, N (dir) (2010) The Forgotten Space
Shewry T (2015) Hope at sea: possible ecologies in oceanic literature.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Sikor T, Newell P (2014) Globalizing environmental justice? Geoforum
Sinclair PR (1990) Fisheries management and problems of social justice.
MAST 3(1):3047
Starosielski N (2015) The undersea network. Duke University Press,
Steady F (ed) (2009) Environmental justice in the new millennium: global
perspectives on race, ethnicity, and human rights. Palgrave
Macmillan, New York
Steinberg P (1999) Lines of division, lines of connection: stewardship in
the world ocean. Geogr Rev 89:254264
Steinberg P (2001) The social construction of the ocean. Cambridge
University Press, New York
Steinberg P (2013) Of other seas: metaphors and materialities in maritime
regions. Atl Stud 10:156169
Steinberg T (2014) Can New York City survive the sea? Dissent 61:6064
Strauss B et al (2012) Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnera-
bility to sea level rise andflooding for the contiguous United States.
Environ Res Lett 7:112.
Superstorm Research Lab (2013) A tale of two Sandys. New York
Tate M, Hull DM (1964) Effects of nuclear explosions on Pacific is-
landers. Pac Hist Rev 33:379393
Taylor DE (2000) The rise of the environmental justice paradigm. Am
Behav Sci 43(4):508580
Teaiwa TK (1994) Bikinis and other s/pacific n/oceans. Contemp Pac
Te Punga Somerville A (2012) Once were Pacific: Māori connections to
Oceania. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Tetiarahi G (2005) French nuclear testing in the South Pacific, or when
France makes light of its duty to remember. Contemp Pac 17:378
United Church of Christ and Commission for Racial Justice (1987) Toxic
wastes and race in the United States: a national report on the racial
and socio-economic characteristics of communities with hazardous
waste sites. Inquiries to the Commission, New York
United Nations Environment Program (2012) Green economy in a blue
world: synthesis report. UNEP DEPI, Nairobi
Urban Environment Conference (1985) Taking back our health: an insti-
tute on surviving the toxics threat to minority communities. Urban
Environment Conference, Washington, DC
Wadewitz L (2012) The nature of borders: salmon, boundaries, and ban-
dits on the Salish Sea. UBC Press, Seattle
Walker B (2010) Toxic archipelago: a history of industrial disease in
Japan. University of Washington Press, Seattle
Walker G (2009) Globalizing environmental justice: the geography and
politics offrame contextualization and evolution. Glob Soc Policy 9:
Walker G (2012) Environmental justice: concepts, evidence and politics.
Routledge, New York
Warne K (2011) Let them eat shrimp: the tragic disappearance of the
rainforests of the sea. Island Press, Washington, DC
Westra L, Lawson B (eds) (2001) Faces of environmental racism:
confronting issues of global justice. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham
Widener P (2018) Coastal people dispute offshore oil exploration: toward
a study of embedded seascapes, submersible knowledge, sacrifice,
and marine justice. Environ Sociol 4:405418
Wise S (2014) Learning through experience: non-implementation and the
challenges of protected area conservation in the Bahamas. Mar
Policy 46:111118
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our com-
mon future. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Young O (1982) The political economy of fish: the fishery conservation and
management act of 1976. Ocean Devpt & Interl Law 10:199273
Publishersnote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.'
J Environ Stud Sci (2019) 9:234243 243
... Equity and justice considerations have risen to the surface in policy deliberations, management decisions, and program design related to marine conservation, fisheries management, and blue economy development. These topics have been brought to the forefront by academic documentation of social justice and distributional issues across these different marine policy realms (Kittinger et al., 2017;Cohen et al., 2019;Martin et al., 2019;Armstrong, 2020;Bennett et al., 2021a) and coinciding civil society efforts to raise the profile of the social injustices facing small-scale fishers, coastal communities, different genders, and diverse racial and ethnic groups (Isaacs, 2019;Johnson, 2020;Gustavsson et al., 2021). Academic and civil society groups and individuals have coined a number of catch phrases to refer to the relationship between equity, justice, and the oceans -including blue justice, marine justice, ocean justice and ocean equity (Martin et al., 2019;Armstrong, 2020;Österblom et al., 2020;Bennett et al., 2021a). ...
... These topics have been brought to the forefront by academic documentation of social justice and distributional issues across these different marine policy realms (Kittinger et al., 2017;Cohen et al., 2019;Martin et al., 2019;Armstrong, 2020;Bennett et al., 2021a) and coinciding civil society efforts to raise the profile of the social injustices facing small-scale fishers, coastal communities, different genders, and diverse racial and ethnic groups (Isaacs, 2019;Johnson, 2020;Gustavsson et al., 2021). Academic and civil society groups and individuals have coined a number of catch phrases to refer to the relationship between equity, justice, and the oceans -including blue justice, marine justice, ocean justice and ocean equity (Martin et al., 2019;Armstrong, 2020;Österblom et al., 2020;Bennett et al., 2021a). Small-scale fisheries organizations, for example, coined the now popular term 'blue justice' to refer to the effects of blue growth and industrial fisheries on the rights, resources and livelihoods of small-scale fishers and coastal communities (Cohen et al., 2019;Isaacs, 2019;Bennett et al., 2021a;Jentoft et al., 2022). ...
... Small-scale fisheries organizations, for example, coined the now popular term 'blue justice' to refer to the effects of blue growth and industrial fisheries on the rights, resources and livelihoods of small-scale fishers and coastal communities (Cohen et al., 2019;Isaacs, 2019;Bennett et al., 2021a;Jentoft et al., 2022). Scholars also recently proposed 'marine justice' as an academic concept, a paradigm, and a movement that merges concerns for the marine environment and environmental justice (Widener, 2018;Martin et al., 2019). The idea of 'ocean equity' emerged in a 2020 report of the High Level Panel on the Sustainable Ocean Economy titled 'Towards Ocean Equity' that highlighted the need for the burgeoning ocean economy to be inclusive and account for equity in the distribution of benefits (Bennett et al., 2019b;Österblom et al., 2020). ...
... In contrast to climate justice, the concept of marine justice is rather recent and seeks to link up the vast interdisciplinary scholarship of marine studies with environmental justice scholars and activists (Martin et al., 2019;Widener, 2018). The idea that a justice lens and, in particular, interand transdisciplinary justice research help to unravel, identify, and address multiple, often layered, inequities and injustices in coupled socio-ecological relationships is pervasive and also key to the more recent and critical ocean sustainability science (Bennett, 2018;Armstrong, 2020;Saunders et al., 2020). ...
... Oceans and coastal regions are increasingly threatened, destroyed, or degraded by human behaviour such as overfishing, marine pollution, coastal erosion, and the unsustainable extraction of marine resources, as well as by anthropogenic climate change and its impacts on ocean temperature increase, sea-level rise, acidification, and ocean deoxygenation (IPCC, 2013(IPCC, , 2018UN, 2017a). As Martin et al. (2019) point out, since the 1980s, environmental justice and marine studies have developed separately and formed their own independent and crucial strands at the crossroads of social movements, policy, and academic research. Both strands historically revolve around issues such as pollution, power relations, participation, knowledge production, and the unevenly distributed benefits and burdens, yet with different points of departure (Martin et al., 2019). ...
... As Martin et al. (2019) point out, since the 1980s, environmental justice and marine studies have developed separately and formed their own independent and crucial strands at the crossroads of social movements, policy, and academic research. Both strands historically revolve around issues such as pollution, power relations, participation, knowledge production, and the unevenly distributed benefits and burdens, yet with different points of departure (Martin et al., 2019). Environmental justice originated, as sketched above, from the reactions of residents in African American, Native American, and Hispanic communities, who were the most adversely affected by the economic and ecological degradation. ...
Full-text available
This special issue (SI) shows that environmental justice perspectives are especially useful for analysing current socio-ecological conflicts. These perspectives help to bridge epistemological and ontological gaps in inter- and transdisciplinary settings and promote normative and justice-oriented discussions on environmental struggles within and beyond the academy. Currently, the following two interrelated environmental crises and their impacts regularly make headlines: climate change and the impacts of the unsustainable use of the oceans. Still, for a large part of the global population – not only but especially in the Global North – both crises remain abstract, mainly becoming visible through news coverage of plastic waste in the oceans, storm surges and droughts, and through documentaries on sea-level rise and the destruction of ecosystems. However, the destruction of marine and coastal habitats and the effects of climate change are increasingly affecting people's daily lives. The effects of climate change, pollution, and marine resource overuse are creating serious disruption to livelihoods and leading to new socio-ecological conflicts and new claims. This SI aims to reflect and explore climate and marine narratives, environmental knowledge claims, multiple ontologies, climate change adaptation, and the spatial and temporal shaping of socio-ecological struggles for climate and marine justice in more detail. Furthermore, it takes up current strands of climate and marine justice scholarship and explores avenues for further research.
... There is a substantial and growing body of empirical evidence that has documented environmental injustices related to land, air and freshwater [4][5][6]16,17]. Much less attention, however, has been paid to environmental justice issues in the marine and coastal environment [18][19][20][21]. Yet, demands for marine resources have rapidly accelerated as have anthropogenic pressures on the ocean [22][23][24][25]. ...
Environmental justice refers broadly to the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, and the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in environmental decision-making and legal frameworks. The field of environmental justice initially developed out of a concern for the disproportionate distribution and impacts of environmental pollution and hazardous waste disposal on groups that have been historically and structurally marginalized, including Black populations and socio-economically disadvantaged communities. More recent environmental justice scholarship has expanded geographically and focused on a broader set of environmental hazards and harms, such as climate change impacts, biodiversity and habitat loss, and ecosystem service declines. Yet, the impacts and distribution of environmental hazards and harms in the marine environment on coastal populations has received less attention in the environmental justice literature. This narrative review paper starts to address this gap through a focus on five main areas of environmental injustice in the ocean: 1) pollution and toxic wastes, 2) plastics and marine debris, 3) climate change, 4) ecosystem, biodiversity and ecosystem service degradation, and 5) fisheries declines. For each, we characterize the issue and root drivers, then examine social and distributional impacts. In the discussion, we explore how these environmental injustices are converging and interacting, cumulative, differentiated, and geographically distributed, and briefly examine solutions and future research directions. In conclusion, we call for greater and more explicit attention to environmental justice in ocean research and policy.
... Packard's role of knowledge facilitation demonstrates how philanthropy can both reinscribe Western-based management strategies and promote the recognition and legitimacy of traditional knowledge in decision-making. This point is important because funder engagement with diverse ways of knowing can have serious implications for conservation agendas and who is empowered to shape them (Avelino, 2021;Baker & Constant, 2020;Dawson et al., 2021;Hickey, 2020;Martin et al., 2019;Temper & Del Bene, 2016). The types of knowledge bases that are legitimized and valued-for example, within Western ideas of managing nature versus I 0 qoliqolis-define what ideas act as truth and allow some forms of governance to make sense, while others do not (Liboiron, 2021;Van der Molen, 2018). ...
Full-text available
Environmental governance scholars have overlooked philanthropic foundations as influential non‐state actors. This omission, along with the continued growth in funding from private foundations for conservation issues, presents important questions about what foundations do in governance spaces. To address this gap, we examine The David and Lucile Packard Foundation's involvement in Fiji and Palau in the context of the Foundation's “Western Pacific Program”—a series of coastal and marine‐related investments made from 1998 to 2020. We describe and analyze six governance roles that the Packard Foundation contributed to: funding, influencing agendas, capacity‐building, convening and coordinating, facilitating knowledge, and rule‐making and regulation. In documenting the Packard Foundation's governance roles, we provide scholars and practitioners a conceptual framework to more systematically and strategically think about foundations as more than funders. This research helps move the conversation around conservation philanthropy beyond binary conceptions of “good” versus “bad,” and, instead, toward deeper considerations about what foundations currently do within governance systems, how they engage with diverse practitioners, as well as what they can and should do to advance conservation goals.
... al evidence that has documented environmental injustices related to land, air and freshwater (Agyeman et al., 2016;Boyd, 2022;Brulle & Pellow, 2006;Cutter, 2012;Walker, 2012). Much less attention, however, has been paid to environmental justice issues in the marine and coastal environment (N. J. Bennett et al., 2021;Bercht et al., 2021;Ertör, 2021;J. A. Martin et al., 2019). Yet, demands for marine resources have rapidly accelerated as have anthropogenic pressures on the ocean (Halpern et al., 2008(Halpern et al., , 2019Jouffray et al., 2020;Nash et al., 2017). Numerous environmental hazards and harms -including chemical and biological pollution, plastics, climate change, habitat modification, ecosystem s ...
Full-text available
Environmental justice refers broadly to the distribution of environmental benefits andburdens, and the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in environmental decision-making and legal frameworks. The field of environmental justice initially developed out of a concern forthe disproportionate distribution and impacts of environmental pollution and hazardous waste disposalon groups that have been historically and structurally marginalized, including Black populations andsocio-economically disadvantaged communities. More recent environmental justice scholarship hasexpanded geographically and focused on a broader set of environmental hazards and harms, such asclimate change impacts, biodiversity and habitat loss, and ecosystem service declines. Yet, the impactsand distribution of environmental hazards and harms in the marine environment on coastalpopulations has received less attention in the environmental justice literature. This narrative reviewpaper starts to address this gap through a focus on five key environmental hazards and harms that areoccurring in the marine and coastal environment: 1) pollution and toxic wastes, 2) plastics and marinedebris, 3) climate change, 4) ecosystem, biodiversity and ecosystem service degradation, and 5)fisheries declines. For each, we characterize the issue and root drivers, then examine social anddistributional impacts. In the discussion, we explore how impacts are differentiated, inequitably distributed, converging and cumulative and briefly examine solutions and future research directions. In conclusion, we call for greater and more explicit attention to environmental justice in ocean research and policy.
... Accordingly, I will first discuss the context of the broader political-economic context leading to inequalities and injustices faced by fisher folks, followed by a review of the existing literature on marine and blue justice (and marine sociology). Additionally, this article will propose the framework of 'Blue Justice' as a new thematic and conceptual area in the environmental justice debates and movements (for a detailed discussion of the environmental justice literature, see Agyeman et al. (2016), and for its application in marine issues, see Martin et al. 2019). Second, I will show that these socio-environmental conflicts (also called ecological distribution conflicts by Martinez-Alier et al. 2010;Scheidel et al. 2018Scheidel et al. , 2020 are a result of both increasing (marine) social metabolism and escalating attempts of grabbing marine resources for further capital accumulation. ...
Full-text available
Fisher people and their communities around the world have been key social actors in seafood production and they are still feeding the world with about two-thirds of the catches destined for direct human consumption. However, they are subjected to a wide range of injustices due to coastal and offshore investment projects and the inequalities embedded in the global capitalist marine economy. These injustices are manifested through socio-environmental conflicts, which have been studied and mapped in the Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas) together with other social actors’ resistances. This article examines 120 fisher folk conflicts that have been identified, documented and mapped in the EJAtlas, while proposing a Blue Justice framework to understand their underlying causes and how fisher people confront such injustices. As a grounded theoretical approach emerging from the scrutiny of fisher resistances and building on environmental justice, critical marine sociology and political economy literatures, the Blue Justice framework proposed here focuses on three dimensions: (i) material and biophysical dimension, (ii) spatial justice, and (iii) autonomy and sovereignty. In adopting this framework, this analysis reveals the blue layers of environmental justice by uncovering both the causes of conflicts faced by fisher communities and their political agency.
... Justice in the oceans has become a central topic over the past decade, and different approaches have been addressed for its study (Martin et al., 2019). Marine justice promotes the transition from social conflict to sustainability, raising equity and human needs on the global agenda (Tafon et al., 2021). ...
Full-text available
In order to navigate toward ocean sustainability, policies, programs, and scientific research must address issues of justice. In fisheries management, justice has generally been understood in terms of the distribution of social, cultural, and economic benefits. However, there are also important procedural justice challenges in the fisheries system, which are fundamental to the long-term sustainability and equity of the oceans. Procedural justice is related to the conditions under which the negotiation for benefit distribution takes place. That is, the procedures, structures, and processes that lead to the distribution of resources. In this study, we empirically assess fishers’ perceptions of procedural justice components within a small-scale fishery management policy in Chile which has been shifting toward a polycentric type of governance during the past 7 years. We specifically assess perceptions of management committee members. Management committees have been constituted as spaces of collective action for participatory decision-making. We decompose procedural justice in seven subcomponents and assess perceptions associated to achievement in the administration of fisheries. Our results show that management committee members perceive heterogeneity in the achievement of different procedural justice components, which is a central element in achieving equitable development in the oceans. The highest perceptions of achievement were found in the procedures for the selection of participants, the use of various types of technical and local knowledge for decision-making, and the perception by participants of ethical and impartial procedures. We also identified significant challenges related to an inflexible legal structure that hinders adaptive management and learning as a tool for institutional transformation. In addition, mechanisms for communicating decisions to users and clear accountability procedures were perceived as weak. It is critical to address these gaps as they can jeopardize the implementation and legitimacy of fisheries management. Focusing on different components of procedural justice can provide an important lens through which advances and gaps in fisheries policy can be identified and worked upon.
Full-text available
One of the most promising economic arenas in the coming decades is the ocean and there are currently numerous initiatives to the ‘blue economy’ discourse that revolves around the argument that small-scale fishers’ livelihoods require greater attention. To synthesize current scientific knowledge and address prevailing research gaps surrounding this discourse, I conduct a scoping review of global literature on the blue economy, blue growth, social equity, and Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF) analyse different international policy papers and national-level blue economy plans. To explore the need for further research, this review focuses on how different aspects of the blue economy risks lead to inequity in the pursuit of ocean sustainability. Based on the initial content analysis, I identify evidence for undermining social equity and justice related to the ocean and find that social equity is often overlooked in national-level blue economy and blue growth initiatives. This overlooking leads to or accelerates processes of coastal and ocean grabbing, displacement, dispossession, and exclusion which strongly impact the livelihoods of marginalized coastal communities, particularly, small-scale fishers in various parts of the world. The collected evidence suggests that there is a missing link between international policy deliberations and national-level implementation plans in the blue economy context. Numerous studies claim that critical re-thinking of policies is required to ensure the sustainability of blue economy trajectories. Unchecked economic growth in the ocean as in other realms can reinforce inequities and unjust and inequitable resource distribution patterns. To pre-empt, mitigate, and resolve likely conflicts, deeper insights are needed to address the impacts of the blue economy and blue growth on coastal livelihoods. I suggest investigating the causes of conflict and further research on how governance responds to sustain small-scale fisheries while embracing the blue economy and blue growth agendas.
Despite the historical and cultural significance of sunken World War II wrecks, many have the potential to threaten marine life and human health because of fuel oil and unexploded munitions that remain encased in their deteriorating hulls. The ‘Ghost Fleet’ of Chuuk Lagoon, this chapter’s case study, potently demonstrates the challenges of in situ preservation of toxic World War II wrecks. This highlights the potential for World War II wrecks to be environmental time bombs, illustrates the interconnectedness of the cultural and natural environments, demonstrating that developments in one of these environments impacts the other environment. The 2001 Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001 CPUCH) is a major achievement in the field of Heritage law, however it also has limitations. For example, due to its formalistic conception of what it means by ‘underwater cultural heritage’ it does not protect World War II wrecks and is silent about responsibility for and the management of toxic underwater cultural heritage. Options for revision of the 2001 CPUCH are thus advanced. Other leading international instruments that concern sunken vessels and marine pollution are also evaluated, including the 2015 Resolution for the Legal Regime of Wrecks of Warships, the 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks and the 2009 Hong Kong Ship Recycling Convention. In addition, the 2013 Minamata Convention on Mercury has potential to raise awareness among nations of the threats posed by toxic military wrecks and underwater dump sites.KeywordsChuuk LagoonToxic underwater cultural heritageUnderwater chemical dumpsitesOil pollutionWorld War II wrecks
Full-text available
This paper explores the spatio‐legal dynamics of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and their relation to socioenvironmental justice. It adopts a critical legal geography perspective to unpack ocean lawscape configurations triggered by territorial claims, the international mechanisms for maritime boundary‐making, and state sovereignty instruments. It is empirically focused on the Seaflower marine biosphere reserve (Seaflower‐BR), a protected area amid a geopolitical contestation between Nicaragua and Colombia in the Southwestern Caribbean. By analyzing its spatio‐legal history over two decades (2000‐2021), the paper sheds light on the marine legalities of this region, which are often contradictory and overlapping. Focusing on the marine lawscape of Colombia, it explores the relationship between protected areas and marine territorialization, also reflecting on the governance regimes' effects on indigenous livelihoods and marine biodiversity. The paper draws a threefold conclusion, namely i) marine protected areas are regularly being disrupted, re‐bordered and reconfigured by the international ocean regimes governing the oceans; ii) the link between the creation and management of marine protected areas and territorial jurisdiction compromises social and environmental justice, and iii) inclusion of indigenous legalities might enhance equity and sustainability in ocean governance.
Chronicles from the Environmental Justice Frontline, first published in 1991, provides a rare glimpse of the environmental justice movement as it plays out in four landmark struggles at the end of the twentieth century. The book describes the stories of everyday people who have decided to take to the streets to battle what they perceive as injustice: the unequal exposure of minorities and the poor to the 'bads' produced by our industrial society. In these struggles residents and local, state, and national environmental and social justice groups are on one side pitted against local and state government representatives and industry on the other. By employing historical and theoretical lenses in viewing these struggles, the book reveals how situations of environmental injustice are created and how they are resolved. These cases bear great similarity to battles occurring across the nation, and are setting precedents for national and state agencies as they handle these cases.
Native identity is usually associated with a particular place. But what if that place is the ocean? This book explores this question as it considers how Māori and other Pacific peoples frame their connection to the ocean, to New Zealand, and to each other through various creative works. This book shows how and when Māori and other Pacific peoples articulate their ancestral history as migratory seafarers, drawing their identity not only from land but also from water. Although Māori are ethnically Polynesian, and Aotearoa New Zealand is clearly a part of the Pacific region, in New Zealand the terms “Māori” and “Pacific” are colloquially applied to two distinct communities: Māori are Indigenous, and “Pacific” refers to migrant communities from elsewhere in the region. Asking how this distinction might blur historical and contemporary connections, this book interrogates the relationship between indigeneity, migration, and diaspora, focusing on texts: poetry, fiction, theater, film, and music, viewed alongside historical instances of performance, journalism, and scholarship.
The Pacific Ocean has long inspired literary imaginings of promising worlds, including Thomas More’s Utopia and Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis. This book asks how literary writers imagine ocean futures more recently, providing a perspective on imagination and art in the context that the sweeping environmental changes are reshaping life possibilities in the Pacific. It looks at contemporary poetry, short stories, art, and journalistic writings from Australia, New Zealand, and Hawai‘i, among other sites, exploring their imaginative accounts of present life and futures in varied sites where people live closely with environmental loss. These literary writings are crafted to offer relationships with the future that include hope, an awareness of the future as a site of openness and promise. Literary writers evoke hope not by turning away from the realities of environmental loss and damage but rather through attunement to the beings, commitments, and struggles of the present world and the futures that such a world might shape. Drawing together ecocriticism and theories of hope, this book makes an argument for hope as a creative and critical engagement with present and past environmental constraints, including myriad forms of loss. It also reflects on the critical approaches that hope as an analytic category opens up for the study of environmental literature. Through this category, the book develops a method for reading literary works as creative accounts of present life and futures that offer hope, among their modes of engagement with the ocean.