Marine Policy 35 (2011) 363–370

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

0308-59

doi:10.1

n Corr

E-m

bengtso

john.cal1 Te2 Te3 Te

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Integrating science into management: Ecological carrying capacityof bivalve shellfish aquaculture

Carrie Byron a,n, David Bengtson a,1, Barry Costa-Pierce b,2, John Calanni c,3

a University of Rhode Island, Fisheries, Animal and Veterinary Science Department, Kingston, RI 02881, USAb Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882, USAc University of Colorado-Denver, School of Public Affairs, 1380 Lawrence Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80204, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 31 August 2010

Received in revised form

26 October 2010

Accepted 27 October 2010Available online 23 November 2010

Keywords:

Carrying capacity

Ecosystem-based management

Aquaculture

Stakeholders

Shellfish

7X/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.marpol.2010.10.016

esponding author. Tel.: +1 401 874 6800.

ail addresses: carriebyron@my.uri.edu (C. Byr

n@uri.edu (D. Bengtson), bcp@gso.uri.edu (B.

anni@email.ucdenver.edu (J. Calanni).

l.: +1 401 874 2668.

l.: +1 401 874 6800.

l.: +1 303 378 6403.

a b s t r a c t

Ecosystem-based management (EBM), despite the best efforts of managers, researchers, and policy

makers, often falls short of its intended purpose resulting in inadequate protection of resources. Coastal

habitats are particularly vulnerable to poor management due to high use and potential for user conflict.

EBM can be improved when it is informed by ecological science and considers the socio-economic needs

of the community. Communication between scientists and stakeholders can help to prevent adverse

outcomes while enhancing protection and sustainability of the coastal environment. In the research

presented here, a framework is used to guide and enhance communication between scientists and

stakeholders for sustainable management of resources and equity of all users. The outcome of this applied

framework is a long-term plan to guide the management of an oyster aquaculture industry using carrying

capacity as an estimate for the basis of management decisions. Central to the framework is the Working

Group on Aquaculture Regulations (WGAR), which represents a diverse group of stakeholders. The WGAR

worked closely with ecological modelers over a two-year period using mass-balance modeling to

calculate ecological carrying capacity for oyster aquaculture in two ecosystems: Narragansett Bay and a

set of highly flushed temperate lagoons in Rhode Island, USA. Collaboration between scientists and the

WGAR greatly improved the models and stakeholder understanding of the science and acceptance of the

results. Aquaculture is increasing in coastal regions world-wide and this framework should be easily

transferable to other areas suffering from similar user conflict issues.

& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

‘‘Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is an integratedapproach to management that considers the entire ecosystem,including humans. The goal of ecosystem-based management is tomaintain an ecosystem in a healthy, productive and resilientcondition so that it can provide the services humans want andneed. Ecosystem-based management differs from currentapproaches that usually focus on single species, sector, activityor concern; it considers the cumulative impacts of differentsectors’’ [1,2]. Often in an attempt to implement EBM there is agap between the ecological ideal and the reality of limitedresources to implement that ideal. While the idealistic ecologicalapproach is informed by the best available science, the reality ofmeeting this ideal goal in EBM is limited by human and social

ll rights reserved.

on),

Costa-Pierce),

constraints. Lack of funding and resources, poor organization,and communication barriers are only a few constraints typicallyencountered. Ecosystem-based management necessitates thathumans (with their socio-economic needs) are a part of theecosystem and the EBM process [2,3]. Therefore, ways must befound to overcome these typical constraints and effectively incor-porate stakeholder needs into the science-based EBM process.

Closing the gap between ecological ideal and reality requires anunderstanding of what is causing that gap in the first place. Of all thepossible constraints creating the gap and inhibiting proper EBMimplementation, poor communication is one of the most pervasive[4,5]. Even when resources are abundant, science is not alwaysincorporated into management or the decision-making process.Often, the lack of consideration for science in decision-making isdue to ineffective communication of that science to stakeholders,managers and decision makers [5,6]. Roux et al. [5] stated thatmanagers hold the view that scientists do not communicateeffectively to non-scientists. In fact, ecosystem-based managementis often not informed by ecosystem science at all [7]. The lack ofcommunication goes in both directions. Science is not effectivelycommunicated to stakeholders and stakeholders are often not giventhe opportunity to communicate their needs or experiential knowl-edge [7]. By strengthening the interactions between scientists and

C. Byron et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 363–370364

stakeholders, science is more likely to be considered in ecosystem-based management.

Stakeholders tend to accept science or other information whenfour criteria are met; representativeness, independence, involve-ment, and transparency [8].

1.

Stakeholders involved in the decision process should comprisea representative sample of all the stakeholders utilizing theecosystem in question [8].

2.

The stakeholder process should be conducted in an independentand unbiased way [8].

3.

Stakeholders should be involved early in the process, shouldhave an opportunity for input, have influence over the finaldecision, and be highly motivated [8,9].

4.

Finally, the stakeholder process and objectives should betransparent [8].

These four acceptance criteria have been widely studied and areoften considered when incorporating participant involvement into adecision-making process [9,10]. However, the techniques used toimplement these criteria vary with location, the issues at hand, andcultural expectations. When these four criteria are met, science is morelikely to be accepted by stakeholders and ultimately incorporated intodecision-making and management. Similarly, scientists have a lot tolearn from stakeholders, and communication should remain open inboth directions. Stakeholders have experiential knowledge that can beused to inform the scientific process. Experiential knowledge about thenatural world was codified in the 1980s as ‘‘traditional ecologicalknowledge’’ [11–13]. Although there is still some question in the peer-reviewed literature on how one can best capture and quantifytraditional ecological knowledge, there is assurance of its utility andimportance [11,12]. As an example, cooperative research between thefisheries industry and fisheries scientists led to improved science thatwas better communicated to and understood by stakeholders [14].When stakeholder processes are integrated with ecological research,the resulting science is better understood, making it more likely to beconsidered by environmental managers and influence policy decisions.

The framework presented here is one example of how to utilizetraditional ecological knowledge for the benefit of the ecosystemand users of the ecosystem. This framework promotes commu-nication between scientists and stakeholders, meets the accep-tance criteria of stakeholder participation, and informs a long-termmanagement plan that is ecosystem-based. This framework wasapplied to a coastal community struggling with user conflict issueregarding expansion of an aquaculture industry. Ecosystem-basedmanagement specific to aquaculture has been called an EcosystemApproach to Aquaculture (EAA) [15]. EAA outlines three principleswhich state that aquaculture,

1.

‘‘should be developed in the context of ecosystem functions andservices with no degradation of these beyond their resiliencecapacity’’,

2.

‘‘should improve equity for stakeholders’’, and 3. ‘‘should be developed in the context of other relevant sectors’’ [15].

Each sector is represented by stakeholders that participate andinform each step of the framework thereby promoting equity amongsectors. The framework presented here promotes an EAA [15].

Fig. 1. Study site map of Rhode Island coastal lagoons and Narragansett Bay, USA.

Map data from RIGIS and Esri, Inc.

2. Study site

Rhode Island, USA, known as the ‘‘Ocean State’’ is the smallest andsecond most densely populated state in the USA making it exception-ally susceptible to user conflict issues as in many other heavily usedcoastal regions. A string of temperate lagoons along the south shore of

the state and Narragansett Bay are two areas currently suffering fromuser conflict (Fig. 1). Rhode Island aquaculture has increased from a$300,000 to a $1.6 million industry in 6 years coincident with anincrease of 9–50 ha of leased benthic habitat [16,17]. On a global scale,the size of the industry is small. However, the rate of increase is quitenotable locally. Ninety-nine percent (99%) of aquaculture in RI isoysters, and this rapid increase in oyster aquaculture has wild clamharvesters nervous about the potential loss of fishing grounds andtheir cultural way of life, even though regulations prohibit the leasingof productive shellfishing grounds for aquaculture [18]. Additionally,coastal homeowners, recreational users, and commercial fishing andtourism industries are affected by potential alteration of habitat byfarms and loss of space for their activities.

The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council(CRMC) is the leading permit authority for aquaculture in RhodeIsland. CRMC considers opinions from the Rhode Island MarineFisheries Council (MFC) on applications for new or expanded leases.In response to the rapid increase in aquaculture and concerns ofwild clam harvesters, the MFC refused in 2007 to consider anyadditional permit applications until a long-term aquaculture planwas in place. CRMC revitalized the Working Group on AquacultureRegulations (WGAR) to develop this long-term plan. The WGARwas established in 2001 to deal with previous user conflicts butthen remained dormant after those concerns were resolved. Therevitalization process expanded the number and types of stake-holders represented in the WGAR to include stakeholders fromall involved sectors of the system: commercial and recreationalfisheries, aquaculture farmers, environmental groups, academia,coastal land owners, and regulators (Fig. 2). Some stakeholdersspecifically were asked to join the WGAR but no one was excludedif they wanted to participate. It was important that all sectors wererepresented in the WGAR to ensure equity among the groups.Representative participation is important for fair decision-making [19]. The WGAR divided into subcommittees in 2007 tostudy the biological, socio-economic, and regulatory aspects ofincreased aquaculture production in Rhode Island. The biological

C. Byron et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 363–370 365

subcommittee recommended in 2008 that: (a) a temporary cap of 5%of the area of Rhode Island’s estuaries be instituted for aquaculture(i.e., no bay or lagoon could have more than 5% of its surface arealeased for aquaculture) based on some very rough calculations, and(b) that funding be obtained to provide a defendable, science-basedestimate for limiting aquaculture in Rhode Island’s waters. Fundingwas obtained in 2008 to use an ecosystem-based approach (Ecopathmodeling) to determine the ecological carrying capacity for oysteraquaculture in Rhode Island. The WGAR was intimately involved inevery step of the modeling process (Fig. 3) and collaborated with anexpert modeler to optimize the process and results.

Fig. 2. Sectors represented by stakeholders participating in the Working Group for

Aquaculture Regulations (WGAR).

Fig. 3. Framework by which the Working Group on Aquaculture Regulations

(WGAR) was able to develop a long-term plan for aquaculture in the state of Rhode

Island, USA. Each shape represents essential components of the framework; boxes

for people, hexagons for processes, and a circle for the final product. Arrows

represent interactions between components. The pictorial box of the fish and palm

tree is the trademark picture for Ecopath—the modeling application used to

calculate ecological carrying capacity. This manuscript focuses on the shaded

portion of the framework representing the ecological carrying capacity process.

Further research is needed for the un-shaded components representing the social

carrying capacity process.

3. Framework

The framework presented here incorporates both ecologicalcarrying capacity and social carrying capacity that are then used toinform a long-term plan for an EAA (Fig. 3). The WGAR is central to theframework and interacts closely with both natural and socialscientists using technical tools (such as modeling) to calculateecological carrying capacity and social carrying capacity, respectively.The calculated carrying capacities then inform a long-term plan asenacted by policy regulators. Policy regulators are those peoplemaking the decisions and can include managers, politicians, councils,or any person or group of people in a position of authority. In general,policy regulators might not necessarily institute a long-term plan orpolicy that is directly in accordance with the carrying capacity butthey should at least consider the carrying capacity as one of severaltypes of information that influence management and policy decisions.

Perhaps the most critical and difficult part of this process is thecommunication between the scientists and stakeholders. Thescientists provide rigor and expert knowledge to the carryingcapacity calculations. Scientists must be able to explain highlytechnical methodologies to a diverse audience including peopleoutside their area of expertise. Abstaining from the use of technicaljargon and highlighting the purpose and application of the scienceto those implementing the science enhance the clarity in commu-nication [20,21]. The importance of this step must not be under-estimated. If the scientist has difficulty in communicating thescience to a diverse audience it is recommended that (s)he receivehelp from an experienced scientific communicator. The entireframework hinges on communication and coordination betweendifferent disciplines. If this communication is impaired, the out-come of this process suffers [5]. After all, stakeholders must feel as ifthey have been invited into the modeling process. Their input helpsalign solutions and problems [5]. In the end, the exchange betweenstakeholders and scientists should foster a sense of stakeholderownership in the final product [5].

There are two key processes within the framework: the calcula-tion of (1) ecological carrying capacity and (2) social carryingcapacity. Social carrying capacity is the maximum aquacultureproduction that does not conflict unacceptably with other humanuses [22]. Techniques for calculating social carrying capacity are stillin their infancy and no standard has yet been established. Onetechnique developed by Kite-Powell [23] and the National ResearchCouncil [24] uses an economic approach by assigning monetaryvalue to all components and functions of an ecosystem supportingaquaculture. Although this is a reasonable start, the reality is thatthese techniques are not fully developed. For this reason, theprocess based on the social carrying capacity is not a focus of thismanuscript. Social carrying capacity will be an important driver formanagement and continued work on the development of the socialcarrying capacity process is strongly encouraged. However, thefocus of this manuscript is restricted to the ecological carryingcapacity process of our framework. As such, the framework aspresented here has not yet been wholly implemented.

4. Ecological carrying capacity process

Ecological carrying capacity for aquaculture is the maximumaquaculture production that does not cause unacceptable changesin the ecosystem [22]. Ecological carrying capacity is typicallycalculated using ecosystem modeling techniques [22,25–37]. A keyaspect of the definition of ecological carrying capacity is thataquaculture does not cause unacceptable impacts on the ecosys-tem, but the definition does not indicate as to who should makedecisions on what is acceptable or unacceptable. Conventionally, itis the modelers who make those decisions. Our efforts, on the other

C. Byron et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 363–370366

hand, were set up to incorporate input from all the stakeholdersand to include them in the decisions regarding acceptability orunacceptability.

The ecological carrying capacity process presented here sup-ports an EAA and meets the four acceptance criteria thereby closingthe gap between theoretical ecological ideals and the reality ofcoastal management. In the event that the social carrying capacityprocess is also implemented, it would allow us to extend ourargument beyond the ecological carrying capacity process to thelarger framework as a whole. Since the framework was not fullyimplemented, arguments made here are currently limited to theecological carrying capacity process.

5. Modeling

Two models were constructed—one for Narragansett Bay andone for the highly flushed temperate lagoons under currentconditions. For details on model construction, see [38,39]. In brief,both models were constructed using Ecopath, a static mass-balanceapproach widely used in fisheries management [34,40–43]. Therewere five basic steps in constructing the models. The first step wasto conceptualize the food-web and identify all important speciesfunctional groups in the ecosystems. All trophic levels wereconsidered making them truly ecosystem-based models. Theconceptual diagram of Narragansett Bay was taken from Monacoand Ulanowicz [42]. The lagoon diagram was constructed fromexpert knowledge (Fig. 4). The second step was to parameterize themodel using the most recent and accurate data available. Primaryparameters necessary for an Ecopath model are biomass, produc-tion, consumption, diet composition, and fisheries extraction. Datasources include primary literature, reports, on-going surveys, andunpublished data. When no recent data were available for thesystems, data from ecologically similar systems were used. Thethird step was to validate the data sources and parameters using asuite of diagnostic tests [44]. These diagnostic tests are designed tohighlight any discrepancies, errors, or potential weaknesses in themodel. The fourth step was to mass balance the model using the

Fig. 4. Conceptual diagram of coasta

Ecopath auto-balance routine. Essentially all the energy flowinginto any functional group must equal the energy flowing out of thatgroup. All functional groups are linked through the food-web. Thefinal step was to calculate carrying capacity. Starting with the finalmass-balanced model at current conditions, the biomass forcultured shellfish was iteratively increased until the model becameunbalanced. At this point the system changed thereby becoming‘‘unacceptable’’ and beyond the limits of ecological carryingcapacity.

6. Stakeholder collaboration

A series of four meetings was held with the ecological modelerand stakeholders specifically to discuss each step of the modelingprocesses (Table 1). The purpose of these meetings was to improvethe transparency of the modeling, which increases stakeholderunderstanding of the process thereby fostering trust and accep-tance of the final results [8]. These four meetings were in additionto more than a year’s worth of monthly discussions and meetingsthat occurred prior to the initiation of the modeling. The goal of thefirst meeting was to introduce the concept of static mass-balancemodeling, the application of Ecopath, and the conceptual diagrams(Fig. 4) for each model. Stakeholders commented on the conceptualdiagram. At the second meeting, data sources of input parameterswere discussed. The purpose of the third meeting was to presentthe final input parameters, pre-balancing diagnostics, and finalmass-balanced models. The ecological logic used in constructingthe mass balance model was explained to the stakeholders and inreturn, the stakeholders asked critical questions propelling theprocess forward. This meeting also provided a final opportunity forstakeholder input before the calculation of carrying capacity.Comments were incorporated into the construction of the modelswhen approved by expert opinion and sufficient resources wereavailable. The fourth and final meeting was simply a presentationof the results—ecological carrying capacity. Some managementadvice was offered to the stakeholders based on sensitivity analysisand model outputs characterizing the ecosystem. But ultimately,

l lagoons in Rhode Island, USA.

Table 1The construction of two ecosystem models for the purpose of calculating shellfish carrying capacity was advanced through the process of four interactive meetings between

the modeler stakeholders.

Meeting Purpose Information exchange Outcome

Modeler-Stakeholders Stakeholders-Modeler

1 Conceptual diagrams Presented conceptual diagram of both

systems, explained how model works,

explained basic ecology of system

Requested changes to lagoon

model

Changes to 3 functional group

nodes in the lagoon model

2 Data sources and input

parameters

Presented data sources and calculated input

parameters

Suggested additional data

sources, approved input

parameters

Acceptance of input

parameters

3 Mass-balance and

validate model

Presented final model Asked questions and expressed

concerns

Acceptance of final model

4 Carrying capacity

calculations

Presented carrying capacity calculations,

discussed management implications

Asked questions, gave ideas for

future research, expressed

appreciation for results

Acceptance of carrying

capacity results

C. Byron et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 363–370 367

the role of the ecological modeler ended upon completion of themodel and presentation of the ecological carrying capacity to thestakeholders and at that point it was up to the managers to utilizethe scientific outcome to inform regulations and policy.

7. Evaluation of ecological carrying capacity modeling process

During the modeling process, an outside party – the AquaculturePartnership Project (NSF Grant #0721067) – evaluated the collabora-tion effectiveness of the WGAR partnership using formal surveys andinterviews. For detailed explanation of their methods, see Calanniet al. [45]. Only selected questions germane to the frameworkand WGAR partnership are discussed here (Table 2). Additionally,detailed notes were taken at each of the four meetings. The surveys,interviews, and meeting minutes served as evaluation data on thesuccess of the process in executing all four acceptance criteria and inmeeting the EAA principles. The work conducted by the AquaculturePartnership Project and other literature was used to demonstrate theeffectiveness of this collaborative modeling process.

The WGAR was an essential component to the operation andfunction of the ecological carrying capacity process and included arepresentative sample of all the stakeholders—the first acceptancecriterion [8]. Interviews with WGAR members suggest that theywere happy with the number of people and the types of associationsrepresented by the WGAR [45]. Ten of 14 survey respondents saidthat there were no critical parties absent [45]. Two stakeholdersresponded that elected town and state politicians and officials werenot interested in joining the WGAR even though they were on thefront lines in receiving complaints from townspeople [45]. TheWGAR did not exclude anyone from participating; however, somegroups chose not to participate. Commercial (finfish) fishermen hada strong presence at the conception of the WGAR but little presenceduring the carrying capacity modeling process [45]. Conversely,coastal homeowners had a stronger presence later in the processthan they did initially [45]. Overall, interviews with the WGARstakeholders suggest that they had an effective number of peopleat the table, typically 15–25, to make decisions and arrive at aconsensus [45]. ‘‘They [WGAR] needed to be inclusive, but not somuch that nothing could get done’’ (interview respondent). Allcritical parties were present so that the ecological carrying capacitycould be calculated and the long-term aquaculture plan could bedeveloped in the context of other relevant sectors thereby adheringto an EAA [15]. Any additional people or representatives may haveprolonged or prohibited their success.

The process of modeling and calculation of carrying capacitywith the purpose of informing a long-term plan was designed

specifically to be inclusive, transparent, and to employ an agreed-upon methodological approach informed by science and bestavailable knowledge. This approach added structure to decisionmaking and also allowed stakeholders to identify and help mitigatethe effects of individual biases, resulting in a process that reflectsthe spirit of Rowe and Frewer’s second acceptance criterion [46].Surveys showed that a majority of stakeholders believed scientiststo be unbiased [45]. Only two of 15 respondents thought there wasa slight bias and two respondents were neutral [45]. Whendecisions were made, every stakeholder had an equal voice anddecisions were made based on a consensus. Although CRMCmediated the sessions, it was the stakeholders who drove thedirection of the sessions, in general, and who initially requestedthe modeling work on ecological carrying capacity. Interviewresponses from WGAR stakeholders show that they valued beingable to voice their opinion even if they did not get exactly what theywanted [45]. ‘‘The big thing is that happy or mad, you were a part ofthe process. I think that means a lot to the stakeholders. You mightnot get what you want, but you were at least able to voice your side.That is a really important thing for people. If you don’t have that,then you won’t get very far’’ (interview respondent). Even thoughstakeholders hold differing opinions regarding various social andecological aspects of aquaculture development and do not considerthemselves homogeneous when it comes to what values they hold[45], survey respondents indicated that they believed most, if notall, stakeholders in the process to be honest, reasonable, and willingto listen. Based on interview responses, the stakeholders under-stand the importance of a negotiated compromise in reachingconsensus-based decisions.

WGAR stakeholders were involved early in the process, gaveinput at all meetings, influenced the final output of the carryingcapacity calculations and long-term plan, and were highly moti-vated throughout the process, which meets the third acceptancecriterion [8,9]. The initial motivation for determining a long-termplan came from the MFC and CRMC. However, the framework andprocess used in determining that long-term plan developedthrough the efforts of the WGAR stakeholders. Stakeholders gaveinput at all meetings and were engaged in the modeling forcalculating ecological carrying capacity. In addition, there appearedto be substantive exchange of ideas within the WGAR, indicating ahigh level of motivation and engagement among the stakeholders.For example, in order to determine member perception of scientificlearning, each survey respondent was asked to rate their level ofagreement (on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree tostrongly agree) with the following statement:

‘‘The WGAR process has given me a better understanding ofaquaculture science.’’

Table 2Selected survey questions and interview probes administered by the Aquaculture Partnership Project. The total number of respondents for each question is indicated (n).

Survey and interview questions n

Survey questions on stakeholder relationship:Please indicate whether the following statements apply to few, half, most or all the stakeholders in the WGAR: 14

(a) Are honest, forthright, and true to their word

(b) Have the same values and priorities that you do

(c) Have reasonable motives and concerns

(d) Are willing to listen, and sincerely try to understand other points of view

(e) Reciprocate acts of good will or generosity

(f) Are trustworthy

For the following issue, indicate whether the WGAR has had any actual impacts so far using a scale ranging from ‘‘Made the Issue Much Worse’’ to ‘‘Made

the Issue Much Better’’

13

Distrust among stakeholders involved in marine aquaculture

Please indicate your opinion (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree) on the following statement, which express

general perceptions about the WGAR:

14

Critical parties were absent [from the process]

Survey questions on scientific process:Please indicate your opinion on the following statement, which expresses general perceptions about the partnership: 15

Better understanding of science

For the following issue, indicate whether the WGAR has had any actual impacts so far using a scale ranging from ‘‘Made the Issue Much Worse’’ to ‘‘Made

the Issue Much Better’’

14

Lack of good science to make sound decisions regarding the siting and operation of aquaculture facilities

Please indicate your opinion (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree) on the following statement, which express

general perceptions about the WGAR:

15

The WGAR has given me a better understanding of aquaculture science

At least partially through your participation in the WGAR, have you changed your professional opinion on any significant scientific or technical issues

related to marine aquaculture? Yes or No

15

Please indicate you opinion on a scale ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’ 15

Scientific experts often selectively release data that support their own values

Please rate the capacity (no capacity, limited capacity, moderate capacity, substantial capacity, complete capacity, not applicable) that you or your

organization has to mobilize scientific and technical resources to help achieve your objectives in the WGAR

15

Interview probes regarding WGAR structure:Was there turnover in the WGAR? 5

Did anyone join late or leave early in the process? 5

Are any important parties not involved? If so, why? 5

Interview probes on WGAR activities:What have been the WGAR’s greatest accomplishments to date? 5

What have been the WGAR’s greatest shortcomings to date? 5

What are the most important reasons for the WGAR’s success to date? 5

What are the greatest obstacles to success? 5

C. Byron et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 363–370368

Nine of the 15 survey respondents (60%) indicated that theyeither agreed or strongly agreed that the WGAR had given them abetter understanding of aquaculture science, with no respondentsindicating disagreement. The remaining 6 respondents indicatedthat they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. However,four of those six respondents were affiliated with a scientificorganization of some sort (i.e., University Researcher, UnaffiliatedResearcher, or University Cooperative Extension). The perceptionof scientific learning in this subpopulation of the respondents isexpected to be somewhat muted (i.e., responses falling in themiddle of the scale) since they are responsible for communicatingthe very information that is intended to result in scientific learning.Therefore, if those responses were removed from consideration,then 9 of the 11 respondents (82%) that did not indicate a scientificor research affiliation agreed that the WGAR process led to a betterunderstanding of aquaculture science. Additionally, when stake-holders were asked if they had changed their mind on significantscientific and policy issues associated with aquaculture develop-ment, 7 out of 15 (47%) and 10 out of 15 (67%) responded in theaffirmative, respectively.

During the four ecological modeling meetings, 25 differentpeople representing 10 different organizations attended at least

one of the four meetings. Attendance ranged from 14 to 19stakeholders representing 80–90% of involved organizations. Inter-views suggest that stakeholders recognize the importance of thisconsistent attendance in promoting trust between individuals andgroups despite conflicting interests [45]. ‘‘I actually think this groupwill be successful in its approach for years to come. The processworked. The people know and trust each other well enough. At leastthey are familiar with each other. They respect each other. Wespent the first year developing respect and trust’’ (interviewrespondent). Consistent attendance also speaks of the sustainedmotivation of the stakeholders throughout the process of devel-oping the long-term plan.

During the four ecological modeling meetings, stakeholdersgave input that directly affected the final outcome of the modelingwork. The fact that stakeholders influenced the outcome demon-strates effective communication between modelers and stake-holders, which is unique to most EBM attempts [5,7]. During thefirst of the four meetings the conceptual diagrams of both thelagoon and Narragansett Bay models were presented along with anexplanation of the Ecopath software. The WGAR asked severalquestions regarding the construction of the model and basicecology of the systems. All questions were answered during the

C. Byron et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 363–370 369

meeting. Two requests came out of the meeting. The first was toseparate macrophytes and eelgrass into two separate functionalgroups in the lagoon model as they were originally combined intothe same group. The second request was to add a group for birds tothe lagoon model, which was originally absent from the initialconceptual diagram.

These two suggestions ultimately changed the structure of thelagoon model. No changes were suggested for the Narragansett Baymodel. This first meeting was especially critical in forming thecommunicative relationship between the scientific modeler and thestakeholders. This meeting was an opportunity for the modeler toreview basic ecology and lay out critical steps in developing anecological model for the stakeholders. Conversely, the stakeholderswere able to inform the science, thereby improving the finalproduct. Surveys showed that 86.7% of respondents (stakeholders)thought that a moderate to complete capacity existed to mobilizescientific and technological resources to achieve objectives (i.e.,calculating carrying capacity and developing a long-term plan) [45].

At the second meeting, all the data sources used to parameterizeboth models were discussed. The modeler presented the currentstate of the scientific sources of data and the stakeholderspresented their experiential knowledge. Stakeholders gave sugges-tions for additional sources of data which were subsequentlyfollowed up on by the modeler. Stakeholders also approved datasources and estimates that would be used to parameterize themodel (as documented in the meeting’s minutes).

At the third meeting, the mass balance model and validation ofthe model was presented to the stakeholders. At the fourth meeting,the final carrying capacity calculations were presented. Stake-holders asked questions regarding the process of mass balancing,validating, and calculating carrying capacity. The open dialogbetween the stakeholders and modeler increased transparency,fostered a sense of trust in the science, and ultimately reduced oreliminated skepticism in the final output. Surveys showed thatstakeholders (10 of 14 respondents) believed that they had ade-quate science and technologies to make sound decisions [45]. Twoof 14 survey respondents thought that adequate science did notexist [45]. Almost half (7 of 15) of survey respondents changed theirprofessional opinion on a scientific issue during the process [45].

The EAA principles were primarily met through the carryingcapacity components of the framework. The ecological carryingcapacity for bivalve aquaculture was 722 t km�2 yr�1 for thelagoons and 3481 t km�2 yr�1 for Narragansett Bay, which was62 times higher than current levels in the lagoons and 635 timeshigher in the Bay [38,39]. This level of bivalve aquaculture exceedsthat found in New Zealand, the top exporter of GreenshellTM

mussels [34,47]. The definition of ecological carrying capacitynecessitates that there is no change and thus no damage to theecosystem will occur if aquaculture remains below these carryingcapacities. Since ecosystem structure and function are preserved atthese levels of aquaculture, traditional and current societal uses ofthe system can also be preserved thereby promoting equity amongstakeholders and thus meeting the second of three EAA principles.

The needs of all sectors were considered through the carryingcapacity process of the framework. The initial estimate of thecarrying capacity was determined to be 5% of the surface area ofopen water in both the lagoons and Narragansett Bay [48]. This iswell below the ecological carrying capacity, which could occupy46% of the lagoons or 9% of Narragansett Bay [38,39]. All WGARstakeholders had equal opportunity to comment on the carryingcapacity process thereby ensuring that all sectors were considered.Restricting aquaculture to the ecological carrying capacity supportsEAA by sustaining ecological function and promoting equitybetween all stakeholders and considers all relevant sectors.

In this instance, a rigorous scientific approach was used to verifythe conservative nature of the initial 5% carrying capacity cap, and

thus may be relied upon in the event that the 5% cap comes underchallenge or is reevaluated in the future. More specifically, thecarrying capacity process allowed the WGAR to verify that the 5%cap was indeed protective of the RI coastal ecosystems in terms ofaquaculture development and was itself a prime in-vivo applica-tion of the four acceptance criteria (as they relate to the incorpora-tion of scientific information into ecosystem-based managementdecision making). Additionally, if aquaculture demands on thesecritical water bodies increase, and the 5% cap begins to infringe onthe socio-economic elements of some stakeholders (i.e., there is aneed to increase aquaculture lease sizes in order for operators tobenefit from economies of scale), the carrying capacity processwill have laid the groundwork for a scientific approach that can beused to defuse stakeholder conflict, integrate science, and gainconsensus.

The ecological carrying capacity results may or may not affectchange in aquaculture policy. Rhode Island is currently managingNarragansett Bay and the lagoons under the 5% cap. Althoughloosely based on ecological knowledge of these systems, it was anumber to which all stakeholders and managers agreed. In effortsto remain conservative in aquaculture development, the 5% policymay remain in effect indefinitely. However, as requests for addi-tional leases continue to increase the CRMC, the state managementauthority, has rigorous science to support increasing that 5% cap.Due to the framework and carrying capacity process, there may beless resistance from stakeholders to an increase in aquacultureshould the policy cap change. The ecological carrying capacityresults also provide managers with an effective tool for arguing insupport of increased aquaculture.

The ecological carrying capacity process of the frameworkpresented supports the EAA principles [15] and gives scientists,managers, and stakeholders a process by which to work together tomitigate user conflict – a ‘‘major constraint from marine aqua-culture in coastal zones’’ – [49] while promoting ecosystempreservation and sustainability. The iterative process of combiningstakeholder participation with rigorous science promotes bettermanagement in two ways. Stakeholder knowledge should not bediscredited [50]. The stakeholders are the ones living and workingin the system and their observations are valuable to informing andimproving science. Improved science informs better management.Secondly, making the scientific process unbiased and clear to thestakeholders improves transparency and ultimately trust in thescience [8]. Science that is understood and trusted is more likely tobe incorporated, or at least considered, in management decisionsand policy creation [46].

Although only one of the two processes in the framework wasimplemented, it can be argued that both the processes, individu-ally, and the framework as a whole are versatile and can be appliedto a variety of situations and systems. Modeling was used as themethodological tool but one that can be substituted with anothertool and the expertise of modelers can easily be substitutedwith the expertise of another ecological specialty/discipline. Withadvances in ecological sciences, other holistic tools may becomeavailable in the future. Similarly, continued development oftechniques to calculate social carrying capacity of bivalve aqua-culture is strongly encouraged.

Acknowledgements

Robert Rheault, David Beutel, and David Alves provided valuableassistance. Peter August made the study site map from dataavailable at RIGIS and Esri, Inc. This work was possible throughthe cooperation and support of the WGAR and all the agenciesand labs that provided the data that were used to parameterizethese models. This project was supported primarily by the NOAA

C. Byron et al. / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 363–370370

National Marine Aquaculture Initiative Grant NA08OAR4170838,in part by the NSF IGERT Grant DGE-0504103 to the University ofRhode Island Coastal Institute, and a John Wald Science Grant. Thesurvey and interview data were collected as part of the AquaculturePartnership Project, funded by NSF Grant 0721067.

References

[1] McLeod K.L., Lubchenco J., Palumbi S.R., Rosenberg A.A. Scientific consensusstatement on marine ecosystem-based management. Signed by 217 academicscientists and policy experts with relevant expertise and published by theCommunication Partnership for Science and the Sea at /http://compassonline.org/?q=EBMS; 2005.

[2] McLeod K, Leslie H. Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Washington,DC: Island Press; 2009.

[3] Ecosystem-based management tools network, /http://www.ebmtools.org/S;2010.

[4] Davos CA, Jones PJS, Side JC, Siakavara K. Attitudes toward participation incooperative coastal management: four European case studies. Coastal Manage-ment 2002;30:209–20.

[5] Roux DJ, Rogers KH, Biggs HC, Ashton PJ, Sergeant A. Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer toknowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society 2006:11.

[6] Conway F, Opsommer L. Communicating and interacting with Oregon’s coastalmarine recreational fishing community. Fisheries 2007;32:182–8.

[7] Carpenter SR, Cole JJ, Pace ML, Van de Bogert M, Bade DL, Bastviken D, et al.Ecosystem subsidies: terrestrial support of aquatic food webs from 13Caddition to contrasting lakes. Ecology 2005;86:2737–50.

[8] Rowe G, Frewer LJ. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation.Science, Technology, & Human Values 2000;25:3–29.

[9] Dalton T. Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public inplanning of U.S. marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 2005;19:1392–401.

[10] Reed MS. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a litera-ture review. Biological Conservation 2008;141:2417–31.

[11] Inglis JT. Traditional ecological knowledge concepts and cases. Internationalprogram on traditional ecological knowledge. Ottowa, Canada: InternationalDevelopment Research Center; 1993.

[12] Huntington HP. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methodsand applications. Ecological Applications 2000;10:1270–4.

[13] Berkes F, Berkes MK, Fast H. Collaborative integrated management in Canada’snorth: the role of local and traditional knowledge and community-basedmonitoring. Coastal Management 2007;35:143–62.

[14] Hartley TW, Robertson RA. Stakeholder engagement, cooperative fisheriesresearch and democratic science: the case of the Northeast Consortium.Human Ecology Review 2006;13:161–71.

[15] Soto D., Aguilar-Manjarrez J., Brug�ere C., Angel D., Bailey C., Black K. et al.Applying an ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture: principles, scales andsome management measures. In: Soto D, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Hishamunda N,editors. Building an ecosystem approach to aquaculture. FAO/Universitat DeLes Illes Balears expert workshop, 7–11 May 2007, Palma De Mallorca, Spain;FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture proceedings, vol. 14, 2008. p. 15–35.

[16] Alves D. Aquaculture in Rhode Island: 2007 yearly status report. CoastalResource Management Council, /http://www.crmc.state.ri.us/pubs/pdfs/aquareport07.pdfS; 2007.

[17] Beutel D. Aquaculture in Rhode Island: 2009 annual status report. CoastalResources Management Council, /http://www.crmc.ri.gov/aquaculture/aquareport09.pdfS; 2009.

[18] Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC). The state of Rhode Island coastalresources management program as amended, Section 300. 11; E. Prohibitions 6(p. 5 of 300.11) Section 300. 11; F. Standards 1. N. (p. 7 of 300. 11), /http://www.crmc.ri.gov/regulations/RICRMP.pdfS; 2008.

[19] Crosby N, Kelly JM, Schaefer P. Citizens panels: a new approach to citizenparticipation. Public Administration Review 1986;46:170–8.

[20] Hendrix MJC, Campbell PW. Communicating science: from the laboratorybench to the breakfast table. The Anatomical Record (The New Anatomist)2001;265:165–7.

[21] Gregrich JR. A note to researchers: communicating science to policy makersand practitioners. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2003;25:233–7.

[22] Inglis G.J., Hayden B.J., Ross A.H. An overview of factors affecting the carryingcapacity of coastal embayments for mussel culture. Client Report Chc00/69+31 p, Niwa, Christchurch, 2002.

[23] Kite-Powell H. Carrying capacity and economic considerations for shellfishaquaculture. In: A presentation at the bioextractive technologies workshop,University of Connecticut, Stamford, 3–4 December 2009.

[24] National Research Council. Ecosystem concepts for sustainable bivalve mari-culture. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010.

[25] Carver CEA, Mallet AL. Estimating the carrying capacity of a coastal inlet formussel culture. Aquaculture 1990;88:39–53.

[26] Heral M. Why carrying capacity models are useful tools for management ofbivalve culture. In: Dame R, editor. Bivalve filter feeders in estuarine andcoastal ecosystem processes. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1993.

[27] Raillard O, Menesguen A. An ecosystem box model for estimating the carryingcapacity of a macrotidal shellfish system. Marine Ecology Progress Series1994;115:117–30.

[28] Bacher C, Duarte P, Ferreira JG, Heral M, Raillard O. Assessment and comparisonof the Marennes-Oleron Bay (France) and Carlingford Lough (Ireland) carryingcapacity with ecosystem models. Aquatic Ecology 1998;31:379–94.

[29] Dame RF, Prins TC. Bivalve carrying capacity in coastal ecosystems. AquaticEcology 1998;31:409–21.

[30] Ferreira JGP, Duarte P, Ball B. Trophic capacity of Carlingford Lough for oysterculture—analysis by ecological modelling. Aquatic Ecology 1998;31:361–78.

[31] Ferreira JG, Hawkins AJS, Monteiro P, Service M, Moore H, Edwards A, et al.SMILE—sustainable mariculture in northern Irish lough ecosystems: assess-ment of carrying capacity for environmentally sustainable shellfish culture inCarlingford Lough, Starngford Lough, Belfast Lough, Larne Lough and LoughFoyle. IMAR—Institute of Marine Research; 2007.

[32] Ferreira JGA, Hawkins JS, Bricker SB. Management of productivity, environ-mental effects and profitability of shellfish aquaculture: the Farm AquacultureResource Management (FARM) model. Aquaculture 2007;264:160–74.

[33] Ferreira JGA, Hawkins AJS, Monteiro P, Moore H, Service M, Pascoe PL, et al.Integrated assessment of ecosystem-scale carrying capacity in shellfishgrowing areas. Aquaculture 2008;275:138–51.

[34] Jiang W, Gibbs MT. Predicting the carrying capacity of bivalve shellfish cultureusing a steady, linear food web model. Aquaculture 2005;244:171–85.

[35] Grant J, Curran KJ, Guyondet TL, Tita G, Bacher C, Koutitonsky V, et al. A boxmodel of carrying capacity for suspended mussel aquaculture in Lagune De LaGrande-Entree Iles-De-La-Madeleine Quebec. Ecological Modelling 2007;200:199–206.

[36] Newell RIE. A framework for developing ‘‘ecological carrying capacity’’mathematical models for bivalve mollusc aquaculture. Bulletin of FisheriesResearch and Development Agency 2007;19:41–51.

[37] Filgueira R, Grant J. A box model for ecosystem-level management of musselculture carrying capacity in a coastal bay. Ecosystems 2009;12:1222–33.

[38] Byron C., Link J., Costa-Pierce B., Bengtson D. Calculating ecological carryingcapacity of shellfish aquaculture using mass-balance modeling: NarragansettBay, Rhode Island, submitted-a.

[39] Byron C., Link J., Costa-Pierce B., Bengtson D. Modeling ecological carryingcapacity of shellfish aquaculture in highly flushed temperate lagoons,submitted-b.

[40] Christensen V. Ecosystem Maturity: towards quantification. EcologicalModelling 1995;77:3–32.

[41] Vasconcellos M, Mackinson S, Sloman K, Pauly D. The stability of trophic mass-balance models of marine ecosystems: a comparative analysis. EcologicalModelling 1997;100:125–34.

[42] Monaco ME, Ulanowicz RE. Comparative ecosystem trophic structure of threeUS mid-Atlantic estuaries. Marine Ecology Progress Series 1997;161:239–54.

[43] Christensen V, Pauly D. Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. Manila,Philippines: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management(ICLARM); 1993.

[44] Link JA. Adding rigor to ecological network models by evaluating a set ofpre-balanced diagnostics: a plea for prebal. Ecological Modelling 2010;221:1580–91.

[45] Calanni J., Weible C., Leach W. Explaining coordination networks in collabora-tive partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,presented at the Western Political Science Association annual conference,submitted for publication.

[46] Frewer LJ, Shepherd R. Consumer perceptions of modern food biotechnology.In: Roller S, Harlander S, editors. Genetic engineering for the food industry:a strategy for food quality improvement. New York: Blackie Academic; 1998.

[47] New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries. Aquaculture in New Zealand,/http://www.aquaculture.govt.nz/files/pdfs/Aqua_NZ.pdfS; 2008.

[48] Rheault R.B. Carrying capacity. In: Coastal Resources Management Council(CRMC) working group on aquaculture regulations (WGAR) subcommittee onbiology. Report on biological impacts of aquaculture,/http://www.crmc.ri.gov/aquaculture/riaquaworkinggroup/workinggroup_bioimpacts_acquaculture.pdfS; 2008.

[49] Costa-Pierce B.An ecosystem approach to marine aquaculture: a global review.In: Soto D, Aguilar-Manjarez J, Hishamunda N, editors. Building an ecosystemapproach to aquaculture. FAO/Universitat De Les Illes Balears expert work-shop, 7–11 May 2007, Palma De Mallorca, Spain; FAO Fisheries and Aqua-culture proceedings, No. 14. FAO, Rome, 2008.

[50] Maguire LA. Interplay of science and stakeholder values in Neuse river totalmaximum daily load process. Journal of Water Resources Planning & Manage-ment 2003;129:261–70.