Research

INTRODUCTION

Coastal and marine landscapes help mitigate against climate change through “blue carbon” habitats, meaning seagrasses, mangroves, saltmarshes, and other nearshore ecosystems that naturally capture carbon and store it in the medium- to long-term (Lovelock and Duarte 2019). Marine sediments are a potential source of offshore carbon sequestration and storage that have gone largely unnoticed, yet are estimated to store nearly one hundred times as much carbon as all nearshore blue carbon habitats combined (Duarte et al. 2013, Atwood et al. 2020). To achieve climate mitigation benefits, these sediments can be protected through Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) or other Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) measures, with the aim of restricting anthropogenic activities that disturb the seabed (Grorud-Colvert et al. 2021, Sala et al. 2021, Jankowska et al. 2022). To ensure MSP is equitable and inclusive, it is key to engage with the general public as well as specific stakeholders at an early stage in the process (Pomeroy and Douvere 2008, Gopnik et al. 2012, Jefferson et al. 2015, Grorud-Colvert et al. 2021). However, there is currently a lack of understanding of how the public perceives “unknown” aspects of marine environments (i.e., invisible, remote, and/or characterized by limited knowledge; see Schuldt et al. 2016; Ankamah-Yeboah et al. 2020; Kaikkonen and Van Putten 2021) such as carbon-storing marine sediments. This may hamper the MSP process. Our study addresses this gap in the literature by conducting empirical research on the emerging public perceptions of carbon-storing marine sediments, and priorities for their management.

Management of carbon-storing marine sediments

MPAs are key policy instruments for ocean protection that are used globally to tackle a wide range of issues, for example in the context of aquaculture, extractive industries, fishing, and shipping (Grorud-Colvert et al. 2021). They have been promoted as a tool to protect and enhance near- and offshore blue carbon stocks by both researchers and policy makers (Grorud-Colvert et al. 2021, Rankovic et al. 2021, Sala et al. 2021, Marine Protected Area Advisory Group 2023). Yet, the complexity of measuring and accounting for this type of carbon sequestration remains a barrier to its management (Luisetti et al. 2019, Macreadie et al. 2019, Legge et al. 2020, Graves et al. 2022). Furthermore, with increased pressure on the seabed from anthropogenic activity, there is uncertainty regarding the impact of certain activities on carbon in marine sediments, for example, offshore renewable energy development (Heinatz and Scheffold 2023), trawling (e.g., Epstein and Roberts 2022, Smeaton and Austin 2022, Hiddink et al. 2023), and dredging (Van De Velde et al. 2018). Given the varying nature of organic carbon in marine sediments, the influence of the dynamic marine environment and the impact of anthropogenic pressures, different areas will require differing management strategies as part of a potential future MPA designation, or more generally, the MSP process.

Changes in the use of coastal and marine environments as a result of MPA designations or other MSP interventions can have a large impact on coastal communities and potentially cause conflict, especially among those who depend on the sea for their livelihoods (Mascia et al. 2010, Ban et al. 2019, Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2020, Grorud-Colvert et al. 2021). As noted, the protection of carbon in marine sediments using MPAs may require restrictions on anthropogenic activities that disturb the seabed (Luisetti et al. 2019, 2020, Atwood et al. 2020, Dunkley and Solandt 2020, Sala et al. 2021, Epstein and Roberts 2022). To ensure support for potential changes in MSP and/or MPA designations, it is vital to adopt a fair and equitable approach to the implementation process, one that respects the rights of stakeholders and that is sensitive to the local context (Mascia et al. 2010, Brennan 2018, Grorud-Colvert et al. 2021). A key method to help understand the local context and inform decision making that is frequently used in marine contexts is public perceptions research (PPR; Jefferson et al. 2015, 2021, Lotze et al. 2018).

The role of speculation in sustaining public perceptions of marine “unknowns”

PPR helps elicit multiple attributes linked to the general public’s understanding of marine environments, including knowledge, values, and attitudes, which can be used to inform meaningful engagement on critical issues such as marine threats, pollution, conservation, and overall management (Jefferson et al. 2015, 2021, Lotze et al. 2018). Among other things, such engagement has been shown to enhance the social acceptability of marine governance interventions including MPAs (Voyer et al. 2015). However, PPR may be difficult to conduct where aspects of the marine environment are relatively new or unknown to the wider public (e.g., the mesopelagic zone, as described by Schadeberg et al. 2023), meaning they are invisible, remote, and/or characterized by limited knowledge (Schuldt et al. 2016, Ankamah-Yeboah et al. 2020, Kaikkonen and Van Putten 2021). In these cases, it may not be clear what, if anything, those aspects of the marine environment mean to people. This issue also affects carbon-storing marine sediments. Yet, evidence suggests that a lack of detailed knowledge about (certain aspects of) marine environments does not prevent members of the public from caring strongly about the well-being of these environments (Ankamah-Yeboah et al. 2020; Kaikkonen and Van Putten 2021).

In this study, we follow Schuldt et al. who postulate that the public perception of marine unknowns may be largely informed by “knowledge structures that are more salient and familiar” (2016:4), such as terrestrial ones. As yet, there has been no empirical research investigating this process of interpretation in relation to unknown carbon-storing marine sediments as they occur in coastal and marine environments that are otherwise familiar to the general public. However, there is empirical evidence that a similar process occurs when members of the public are asked to engage with subsurface (or subterranean) environments. For example, Gibson et al. (2016) show that people use deductive reasoning, based on analogy and experience, to support their perceptions of subsurface hydrology and hazards. Ryder et al. (2023) further demonstrate that historical people-place connections, incorporating extensive prior knowledge of particular areas, form the basis of public perceptions of risks connected to subterranean shale gas extraction. From these studies, it appears that a bias toward the known characteristics of a given environment directly affects the perception of its unknown aspects.

All this resonates with aspects of critical theory by Harman (2018), which can be used to characterize the process of interpreting the unknown as a form of speculation. Harman (2018) maintains that speculation involves mechanisms such as metaphor (i.e., the comparative use of evocative language, similar to analogy in Gibson et al. 2016) and knowledge (linking to prior experience as identified by both Gibson et al. 2016 and Ryder et al. 2023). Harman’s work has been previously cited as a way to encourage public engagement with energy sustainability challenges because of its capacity to recruit the imagination (Murphy et al. 2021). This can be extended to the marine conservation context. Crucially for the current study, Harman (2018) also emphasizes the epistemic uncertainty that underpins all forms of knowledge production, including the knowledge that informs public perception and scientific inquiry. The management of uncertainty has become increasingly pertinent in the context of environmental conservation, and has been argued to variously involve differing forms of knowledge, general unpredictability, and the (partial) absence of knowledge (Brugnach et al. 2008, Ounanian et al. 2018). By accepting epistemic uncertainty as inherent to the study and management of marine environments, we leave space for disagreement between members of the public and scientists, which has been identified as a critical component of socially engaged science communication processes (Dahlstrom 2014).

Aim and objectives

The aim of this study is to empirically assess existing place meanings associated by local residents with the coastal and marine environment, and to describe how these intersect with emerging perceptions of their unknown aspects, in this case carbon-storing marine sediments. We specifically interrogate the potential role played by speculative mechanisms in supporting emerging perceptions of these sediments. Additionally, we seek to understand how different place meanings and perceptions inform residents’ ideas about MSP for the future management of the marine sediments.

METHODS

Study area

Dundalk Bay is a large estuary in north County Louth, Ireland, near the border with Northern Ireland (Fig. 1). It extends from the edge of the Cooley Peninsula in the north to the community of Clogherhead in the south, with the coastal belt encompassing multiple towns, villages, and recreation sites including Gyles Quay, Dundalk, Blackrock, Castlebellingham, Annagassan, and Salterstown. Based on the latest census data, the total population of the coastal area is estimated to be between 60,000 and 70,000 (Central Statistics Office 2023). Dundalk Bay itself is shallow and intertidal and characterized by a mosaic of sediment types including sand and gravel, as well as areas with large accumulations of soft sediment, such as mud. It has been designated both a Special Protection Area (SPA) and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the European Birds and Habitats Directives because of its unique saltmarsh and sandflat ecosystems and the birdlife they support (NPWS 2014a, 2014b). The bay was identified by the Irish government as one of several offshore areas in the country that potentially store large amounts of organic carbon in sediments on the seabed (Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage 2021).

In terms of economic activity, the Dundalk Bay area includes the once thriving and now largely inactive Dundalk Port, which is currently owned and operated by Dublin Port. Located on the Castletown River, Dundalk Port requires extensive dredging in order to be navigable for heavy shipping, but this has not been done for several years (Ryan 2022). The intertidal part of the bay is a site for commercial cockle and razor clam fishing, while the area further offshore boasts the lucrative nephrops fisheries (better known as the Dublin Bay Prawn; Marine Institute 2023). Several offshore renewable energy facilities are planned in the vicinity, though none are currently in operation (4C Offshore 2023). These multiple, overlapping forms of anthropogenic activity make Dundalk Bay an exemplary site to study the potential impact of marine policy interventions for the protection of marine sediments; as such, our findings may prove informative for forthcoming MPA / MSP processes elsewhere in Ireland and internationally.

Instrument design

The semi-structured interview and focus group were selected as qualitative methods that facilitate informal conversations about the meanings associated by participants with coastal and marine environments, their perceptions of carbon-storing marine sediments, and preferences for the future management of the area (see Appendix 1 and 2). Crucially, these methods also leave space for disagreement with scientific research, based on participants’ own knowledge of the local environment. There were minor differences between the interview guide (focusing on individual perspectives) and the focus group guide (focusing on the community). Participants were asked to include the area further away from the coast in their reflections (> 5km, i.e., the offshore environment strictly). We did not ask participants directly to use speculative mechanisms such as analogy or knowledge in their responses.

To establish what place meanings were associated with Dundalk Bay, we asked participants what the area meant to them in general as well as according to particular dimensions (we suggested “social,” “historical,” “economic,” “policy,” “cultural / artistic,” “environmental / scientific,” “future,” and “other”). This reflects the multidimensional approach more often taken in place studies, to investigate the meaning(s) of a place to oneself, the community, and as environment (Gustafson 2001). To assess the baseline understanding of carbon-storing marine sediments, we asked participants to describe the sediments’ importance. We then presented a brief factual description (Appendix 3) guided by a visual representation (Fig. 2), and asked whether this description had changed the participants’ understanding of the topic. Finally, we asked about the pros and cons of marine sediments, the potential impact(s) of their presence on individuals and the community, and preferences for the future management of the area.

Conversations were led by a non-expert member of the project team (i.e., without a background in marine geoscience), which was emphasized to the study participants. We invited participants to present their own knowledge and to challenge the provided description of carbon-storing marine sediments if they felt it was inaccurate. Scientific knowledge gaps were emphasized throughout the process and participants were encouraged to explore and where possible resolve these based on their own experiences. This is in line with arguments by Harman (2018) on epistemic uncertainty in knowledge production. Furthermore, explicating uncertainty has been shown to increase public trust in scientific research because it reduces perceived communicator bias (Steijaert et al. 2021). The use of imagery in the introduction to carbon-storing marine sediments was done to improve the vividness of communication and enhance subsequent discussion (Boomsma et al. 2016).

Data collection

Two pilot interviews and two pilot focus groups were conducted in February 2023. All participants in the pilot phase were Irish coastal residents, but none were local to the Dundalk Bay area. Based on feedback received during the first pilot focus group, we changed the introduction of carbon-storing marine sediments from written text to oral presentation, to maintain the flow of conversation. It was also mentioned that scientific terminology was potentially too complex for community engagement and might constitute a barrier to participation. We therefore reverted to general use of the term “mud on the seabed” and tested the adapted format in the second pilot focus group. In the introduction to the subject, it was made clear to participants that “mud on the seabed” was shorthand for several types of sediment that potentially contain carbon, namely sand, gravel, and mud. See also Appendix 3.

For the study, we conducted 11 interviews (n = 12) and 1 focus group (n = 7), with total n = 19. There were 12 male and 7 female participants of varying ages (18–65+). Of these, 14 participants were based in Dundalk (the urban area) and 5 in / near Clogherhead (the rural area). To recruit participants, we used a snowball sampling strategy after initial promotion of the study via a poster campaign, social and traditional media engagements, and local stakeholders. The latter included volunteer groups and recreational clubs (e.g., anti-litter groups, the coast guard, sea swimmers, bird watchers), business and industry groups, artist collectives, the county council, and public participation networks. Anyone over 18 years old who identified as a local resident qualified for participation in the study. Data collection took place between March and May 2023 and continued until saturation.^[1] Our interview sample corresponds with the range of 9–17 interviews recommended for saturation (Hennink and Kaiser 2022). Because of scheduling difficulties, we conducted fewer than the suggested number of 4–8 focus groups (Hennink and Kaiser 2022). As our interviews and focus groups engaged participants on the same topics, the threshold for saturation was still reached for the combined data sample. The research was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee for Sciences at University College Dublin (reference number LS-LR-23-30-Buitendijk).

Analysis and interpretation

We carried out collaborative reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) using the Quirkos Cloud platform (see Braun and Clarke 2006, 2013, 2019, Byrne 2022, Bahl et al. 2023). This approach allows the use of multiple coders to refine themes and to add nuance to the overall analysis, based on individual experience or knowledge (Byrne 2022, Bahl et al. 2023). The analysis for our study involved two coders and used a stepped and convergent approach to ensure rich interpretations of meaning within a coherent thematic framework. Coders began by familiarizing themselves with interview and focus group data through manual transcription, ensuring a common standard by adhering to an agreed transcription protocol and by reviewing each other’s work on the basis of random sampling. Study data was subsequently coded using a primarily inductive approach. Coders used both their own and overlapping codes in a coding environment that was updated in real time (a functionality of the Quirkos Cloud platform). The aim was to encourage heterogeneity at ground level, leading to a potentially larger number of codes but also ensuring the richest possible interpretation of study data. The first round of coding was followed by a cross-review of all data for accuracy and to find additional meanings.

The second stage of analysis consisted of consensus-building exercises and initial theme development. Coders jointly reviewed the generated codes to collapse identical ones and to further refine those that were considered too vague or perceived to have a “catch-all” character. At this stage, self-explanatory, descriptive, or overly contextual information was excluded if it skewed the contents of a code; and codes that contained only such information were discarded altogether. No minimum content limit was maintained for codes, i.e., those containing three or fewer quotes were retained if their meaning was otherwise lost. This review process was followed by a visual clustering of codes in Quirkos to tease out patterns in the data and to facilitate drafting of themes and subthemes.

Draft themes and subthemes were discussed and revised to ensure both internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity (Braun and Clarke 2006, Byrne 2022). As part of this process, overly topical or minor subthemes were incorporated into other subthemes where possible. This also provided a final opportunity for coders to review code clustering and to correct this where necessary (e.g., assigning a code to a different subtheme, or reviewing a code for internal consistency). Codes were excluded if they constituted outliers that did not contribute to the overall analysis. Each theme and subtheme was named and accompanied by a central organizing concept that sums up and bounds its contents (Braun and Clarke 2019). The results of thematic analysis (Appendix 4) were then used as the basis for this publication.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Dimensions of place meaning in Dundalk Bay

Study participants identified a variety of place meanings associated with Dundalk Bay, expressed at both the general level and with regard to specific dimensions (e.g., “environmental / scientific,” “historical,” “social,” etc).^[1] Generally speaking, many participants considered the bay a special place worth safeguarding: “Dundalk Bay is the ... Is me local bay, you know, I’m very kind of ... Proud of it, protective of it.” This sense of pride carried over into more detailed reflections on particular dimensions of place meaning associated with the bay, which themselves frequently intersected. For example, with regard to the “cultural” dimension, almost every participant mentioned the importance of Dundalk Bay for active recreation (e.g., walking, sea swimming). More passive forms of recreation interlinked with an “environmental” dimension, expressed through an appreciation of Dundalk Bay as a natural area, including in terms of the diversity of conditions along the coast, the beauty of the bay, and the rich birdlife it supports. The “historical” dimension often overlapped with a “personal” dimension (emerging autonomously), with the majority of participants having grown up locally and/or having a long-standing family connection to Dundalk Bay. Some participants had worked in the area for years in a variety of maritime industries (e.g., fishing, shipping). Reflecting on the “future” dimension of place meaning, many participants cited the importance of safeguarding the bay for the next generation. The “social” dimension was emphasized through the role played by Dundalk Bay in connecting people locally: “I often think of my community as ... Drawing from, you know, along the bay, if you like. The different communities, not just Dundalk Town, but some of the smaller towns along the coast as well.” The importance of the bay to the community also informed reflections on an “economic” dimension, with participants discussing the opportunity to develop the area for recreation, tourism, and industry (e.g., offshore renewable energy).

The existence of “personal” and “community” dimensions of place meaning (and interlinked dimensions including “historical,” “future,” and “economic”) associated with the bay resonates with findings from previous place-based research with communities in both Ireland and Wales, on how residents’ attachment to the coastal and marine landscape is tied to the distinct cultural functions it affords (Devine-Wright and Howes 2010, Buitendijk et al. 2024). A better understanding of the various dimensions of place meaning can help anticipate the potential impact of change on the community, including from MSP interventions, because of the fact that most of these dimensions are associated with the bay as it currently is (Devine-Wright 2009, Clarke et al. 2018, Buitendijk et al. 2024).

Analogy and knowledge related to carbon-storing marine sediments

Results from thematic analysis exemplify how speculative mechanisms such as analogy and (experiential) knowledge are used to support emerging perceptions of carbon-storing marine sediments. To begin with, many participants qualified their contributions to the study by saying that they knew relatively little about carbon-storing marine sediments. In many cases, analogy was subsequently used to bridge between the known and the unknown, with participants repeatedly using terrestrial environments to inform their understanding of marine sediments. Analogy was also used to indicate valence (i.e., how respondents felt about the sediments). For example, we found positive comparisons between the seabed and desert ecosystems and peatlands: “Similar to kind of like, a bog storing carbon. It’s ... ultimately positive, for me.” The analogy of ploughing one’s garden was used to explain dredging for cockle and razor fishing, leading to the destruction of the vulnerable ecosystem in place. Knowledge was obtained from past interactions with the coastal and marine environment in Dundalk Bay that were themselves embedded within the various dimensions of place meaning (e.g., “culture”: recreational activity; “history”: personal and family connections). Participants made inferences from these interactions to understand what carbon-storing marine sediments are. This corresponds with findings by Gibson et al. (2016) and Ryder et al. (2023) that existing place meanings (and associated landscape interactions) are key indicators for the public perception of unknown aspects of a given environment.

The use of analogy and knowledge was varied between participants, resulting in disagreement (across interviews and the focus group) on the character and presence of carbon-storing marine sediments in the Dundalk Bay area. At the level of analogy, multiple participants considered the carbon trapped in sediments as a positive phenomenon, but others viewed it less favorably, for example, comparing the sediments to asbestos warranting careful removal. In terms of (experiential) knowledge, several participants had witnessed increases in sedimentation in the bay and argued that “mud” was a widespread phenomenon. Yet, others argued that the only carbon-containing sediment in the Dundalk Bay area was “black carbon mud” (participant description) found along the northern half of the coastline between Blackrock and Annagassan, with the southern coastline predominantly characterized by “hard sand and stone” (also participant description; see Fig. 3).

Identifying the location of marine sediments and assessing human impacts

We found that those living in rural areas (e.g., Clogherhead) were more likely to identify locations of carbon-storing marine sediments in Dundalk Bay than those in the urban area (Dundalk). This may be because multiple participants in the rural area had a professional connection to Dundalk Bay (e.g., fishing and shipping) that afforded more intimate encounters with sediments, including through sonar. Crucially, such experiential knowledge can help fill in gaps in official data because of the ability of small boats (e.g., those used for cockle and razor clam fishing, recreation, and water safety) to come closer to shore than survey vessels (Fig. 3). Local knowledge of offshore areas has been previously used to support scientific research in this way, for example, to rapidly characterize previously unknown vulnerable ecosystems in coastal Labrador, Canada (Cote et al. 2023).

In terms of human impacts on the sediments, there were several participants who believed that any type of disturbance was undesirable: “Once you start ... moving it around or extracting it, or disturbing it, well then, you’re releasing carbon dioxide, and that ... that’s a bad thing for all of us, like, in terms of climate change.” Others maintained that a low level of sediment disturbance has always occurred in Dundalk Bay and that this has no detrimental effect on the seabed, especially since the sediment is returned:

All they take out is the cockles. You know. ... The sediment goes straight back. Yeah. Now, it does come up and goes through a grater ... uh, on deck, but um ... and washed through, like it’s ... but you’ll be- it’ll be the same for, uh, trawlers from what I- like if they’re prawn trawling and they’re lifting their nets, so, sometimes you can get muddy ... uh ... you can get muddy prawns or a muddy bag of prawns, but they’re all washed off with sea water on deck. The sediment’s washed straight back into the ... Back into the sea. Yeah. So nobody’s taken it away or ... you know.

Striking the balance between nature and the economy in Dundalk Bay

Many conversations focused on the multiple, potentially conflicting uses of Dundalk Bay. In this context, a number of participants stressed the need to strike a balance between different interests: “It’s probably the balance of um ... looking after the bay, particularly from a biodiversity aspect, and also using it as an asset for tourism, um, and for leisure, for the economy. So it’s that balance ...” However, often two foci could be detected, with participants either tending toward nature (linked to the “environmental” dimension of place meaning) or the economy (drawing in “community,” “cultural,” and “economic” dimensions). Both groups invoked place meanings associated with the history and future of the bay, but in different ways.

With regard to nature, participants were primarily concerned about the negative impacts of past and present anthropogenic activity on the well-being of the bay. Several people cited historical examples of harmful activities, for example, sewage dumping (including heavy corrosives), and noted improvements in ecosystem functioning after these practices had ceased. Local knowledge fed into concerns about potential fallout from the Sellafield nuclear power plant in West Cumbria (UK), and the effect of this on Dundalk Bay. In terms of present concerns about the natural environment, many pointed at the negative ecological and seabed impacts of razor and cockle fishing, dredging to maintain access to the port, and plans to construct a wind farm.^[2] Meanwhile, participants recognized the environmental benefits of a decline in economic activity, having witnessed an increase in the number of overwintering birds and a better catch during recreational fishing. With regard to the sediments, a small number of participants mentioned negative impacts on everyday recreation from increased sedimentation, for example lower water quality for swimming. Yet, overall people pointed at the importance of preventing sediment disturbance, to keep carbon locked in and prevent further contributions to climate change.

In contrast, there were also participants who supported the economic exploitation of Dundalk Bay. Similar to previous studies, we found that participants emphasized the distinct value of fishing, shipping, and other activities that take place in the offshore area (e.g., Brookfield et al. 2005, Brennan 2018, Ounanian 2019). Their importance was framed both financially (i.e., for those employed in the industry), and culturally and historically, as being characteristic for the area: “[T]here’s been a port in there since the 1500s ... and it’s still there, it’s still working...” Furthermore, several people mentioned the potential for economic development of the bay, for example, for sustainable tourism or offshore renewable energy. In this context, carbon-storing marine sediments were considered a potential resource, impediment, or both:

I think, in the case of the mud, you have to find out what ... potentially what can you do with it. Can you do anything with it? First of all, can you remove it? If you can remove it, how do you remove it and where does it go? What’s the damage if you remove it ... and then ... if you can’t remove it, what is the develop- future development of Dundalk Bay, if it can’t be removed.

Despite a general unease about the impact of the relatively small local fishing fleet on the marine environment and its sediments, a considerable number of participants also argued for the need to find a way forward for the industry, owing to their longstanding presence in the area and close ties to the community (cf. Brennan 2018). There was sympathy with the fisheries as continuously under pressure from regulatory bodies, (inter)national competition, and economic downturn:

The fishing in Ireland is on its knees at the moment. Like, they decommissioned another heap of boats this year. There’s five boats gone out of Clogher now. ... Yeah, dispatched or decommissioned, there’s three of them there now just going for scrap. You know, so, I wouldn’t like to see what state the fishing industry is going to be in in 20 years’ time, now. There won’t be any razor fishing, that’s for sure. They’ll be out-fished altogether.

Generally speaking, we found that rural participants were more likely to mention fishing activities and/or express support for the industry. However, there were also participants from the rural area with negative perceptions of fishing activity in the bay, citing litter problems and the detrimental effects of fishing on the marine environment. Similarly, participants from urban areas did not always support the protection of nature over economic interests, confirming that there was no fundamental division between urban and rural participants on this issue.

Need for further research and community input on MSP

Participants identified a number of regulatory shortcomings. These ranged from ineffective attempts at reducing coastal erosion and failures in wastewater management to the government regulation of the fisheries, which participants considered either too lenient or too restrictive based on their conception of the balance between nature and the economy. Discussing the future of the bay, and in particular carbon-storing marine sediments, multiple participants expressed the importance of further research to address existing knowledge gaps, while stressing the need for a careful management approach:

I think it’s very valuable both in terms of- ecologically, and even some of the things maybe, that we don’t know, like you were saying, we don’t really know about the mud, but we’re trying to find out, like why is it important? I think, if you don’t know, well then you leave it until you kind of understand more about it, you don’t go and destroy it and then realize, well actually, we’re after ... making things a whole lot worse by disturbing that.

Participants mentioned that the results of scientific research on carbon-storing marine sediments in Dundalk Bay should be dispersed appropriately to raise community awareness of the issue. There was also a desire to include local voices in future decision-making processes related to the bay and its sediments: “It’s critical that people feel part of ... Any change that’s going to happen in that relationship with the bay.” The importance of recognizing local stakeholders and their values is frequently identified in studies on coastal and marine management (Mascia et al. 2010, Brennan 2018, Grorud-Colvert et al. 2021, Ounanian et al. 2021). As such, the multiple dimensions of place meaning identified in this study, and the enhanced understanding of the role played by speculative mechanisms in the public perception of marine unknowns, may lead to a better understanding of public priorities for marine governance. Recognition of these priorities in MSP conversations can ultimately enhance the community acceptance of key decisions (Voyer et al. 2015).

Theoretical implications

This study makes an important contribution to current literature on the role played by existing place meanings in supporting public perceptions of unknown aspects of given environments. By incorporating critical theory by Harman (2018), we provide a conceptual interpretation of multiple speculative mechanisms that were described in field studies on subterranean environments by Gibson et al. (2016) and Ryder et al. (2023). In a coastal and marine setting, we provide empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis by Schuldt et al. (2016), that the general public adopts a “terra-centric” perspective to enhance its understanding of unfamiliar marine processes. The use of analogy by study participants also confirms that visual language may help improve communication about marine issues (as similarly theorized by Schuldt et al. 2016). In so doing, our research contributes to a growing field of inquiry exploring the public perception(s) of marine unknowns, including the deep-sea environment, deep-sea mining, and now carbon-storing marine sediments that also helps identify key priorities for the future management and protection of these resources (see Ankamah-Yeboah et al. 2020, Kaikkonen and Van Putten 2021). Public engagement on such marine governance processes, most notably MPA designation, is a critical component of effective MSP given the social, ecological, and economic considerations involved (e.g., Lubchenco and Grorud-Colvert 2015, Pendleton et al. 2018, Kriegl et al. 2021).

Limitations and recommendations for future research

Some dimensions of perception that were prevalent during thematic analysis may have emerged as a function of participant self-selection. For future studies, a larger sample of participants and/or different sampling methods can help overcome this limitation. Additionally, the definition of carbon-storing marine sediments, albeit necessary as a conversation starter, may have influenced study findings (cf. Attari et al. 2017). Yet, previous studies by Ankamah-Yeboah et al. (2020) and Kaikkonen and Van Putten (2021) also use a combination of text and images to engage participants in conversations on marine unknowns. To mitigate against design bias, we emphasized knowledge gaps and encouraged participants to challenge the scientific status quo based on their own knowledge of the study area. Participants were also invited to comment on the terms of the study itself; for example, several noted that “Dundalk Bay” is only infrequently used as an identifier for the marine area around Clogherhead.

CONCLUSION

Carbon-storing marine sediments are potentially important to the global marine carbon stock, and scientific research into this type of “blue carbon” reservoir is rapidly expanding. In order to manage these sediments effectively, it is imperative to engage with local communities at an early stage. In this study, we investigated how existing place meanings associated by local residents with the coastal and marine environment inform emerging perceptions of carbon-storing marine sediments. We specifically described the role played by speculative mechanisms such as analogy and knowledge in helping residents bridge between the known and the unknown. Crucially, by engaging with public concerns and ideas about marine environments, and in particular their sediments, we help identify community priorities for their future management. Incorporating these priorities in forthcoming MSP conversations can help enhance the social acceptability of marine governance.

__________

^[1] Following the inductive approach to thematic analysis, results were not grouped according to these dimensions (see Appendix 4). However, the majority of (sub)themes can be easily linked to one or more dimensions (including ones emerging autonomously) at the post-analysis stage.

^[2] The overlap function in Quirkos (comparable to visual cluster analysis in NVivo) demonstrates that the fisheries are most commonly thought to disturb the seabed in Dundalk Bay, with dredging to prevent siltation and drilling for wind farm construction mentioned considerably less often.

LITERATURE CITED

Ankamah-Yeboah, I., B. B. Xuan, S. Hynes, and C. W. Armstrong. 2020. Public perceptions of deep-sea environment: evidence from Scotland and Norway. Frontiers in Marine Science 7:137. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00137

Attari, S. Z., K. Poinsatte-Jones, and K. Hinton. 2017. Perceptions of water systems. Judgment and Decision Making 12(3):314-327. https://doi.org/10.1017/S193029750000591X

Atwood, T. B., A. Witt, J. Mayorga, E. Hammill, and E. Sala. 2020. Global patterns in marine sediment carbon stocks. Frontiers in Marine Science 7:165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00165

Bahl, N. K. H., E. Øversveen, M. Brodahl, H. E. Nafstad, R. M. Blakar, A. S. Landheim, and K. Tømmervik. 2023. Multiple psychological senses of community and community influences on personal recovery processes from substance use problems in later life: a collaborative and deductive reflexive thematic analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being 18(1):2190200. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2023.2190200

Ban, N. C., G. G. Gurney, N. A. Marshall, C. K. Whitney, M. Mills, S. Gelcich, N. J. Bennett, M. C. Meehan, C. Butler, S. Ban, T. C. Tran, M. E. Cox, and S. J. Breslow. 2019. Well-being outcomes of marine protected areas. Nature Sustainability 2:524-532. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0306-2

Boomsma, C., J. Goodhew, S. Goodhew, and S. Pahl. 2016. Improving the visibility of energy use in home heating in England: thermal images and the role of visual tailoring. Energy Research & Social Science 14:111-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.01.005

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2013. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11(4):589-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Brennan, R. E. 2018. The conservation “myths” we live by: reimagining human-nature relationships within the Scottish marine policy context. Area 50(2):159-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12420

Brookfield, K., T. Gray, and J. Hatchard. 2005. The concept of fisheries-dependent communities: a comparative analysis of four UK case studies: Shetland, Peterhead, North Shields and Lowestoft. Fisheries Research 72(1):55-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2004.10.010

Brugnach, M., A. Dewulf, C. Pahl-Wostl, and T. Taillieu. 2008. Toward a relational concept of uncertainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently, and accepting not to know. Ecology and Society 13(2):30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02616-130230

Buitendijk, T., E. S. Morris-Webb, J. Hadj-Hammou, S. R. Jenkins, and T. P. Crowe. 2024. Coastal residents’ affective engagement with the natural and constructed environment. People and Nature 6(1):165-179. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10561

Byrne, D. 2022. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity 56:1391-1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y

Cánovas-Molina, A., and E. García-Frapolli. 2020. Untangling worldwide conflicts in marine protected areas: five lessons from the five continents. Marine Policy 121:104185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104185

Central Statistics Office. 2023. F1011 - Population density and area size. Central Statistics Office, Cork, Ireland. https://data.cso.ie/table/f1011

Clarke, D., C. Murphy, and I. Lorenzoni. 2018. Place attachment, disruption and transformative adaptation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 55:81-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.006

Cote, D., B. M. Neves, J. Angnatok, W. Bartlett, E. N. Edinger, L. Gullage, R. Laing, A. Normandeau, V. E. Hayes, O. A. Sherwood, and M. Geoffroy. 2023. Local ecological knowledge and multidisciplinary approach lead to discovery of hidden biodiversity in the deep ocean of Labrador, Canada. Ecology and Society 28(4):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14325-280404

Dahlstrom, M. F. 2014. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:13614-13620. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111

Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. 2021. Project Ireland 2040. National Marine Planning Framework. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/60e57-national-marine-planning-framework/

Devine-Wright, P. 2009. Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place‐protective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 19(6):426-441. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1004

Devine-Wright, P., and Y. Howes. 2010. Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(3):271-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.008

Duarte, C. M., I. J. Losada, I. E. Hendriks, I. Mazarrasa, and N. Marbà. 2013. The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nature Climate Change 3(11):961-968. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1970

Dunkley, F., and J. L. Solandt. 2020. Marine unprotected areas: a case for a just transition to ban bottom trawl and dredge fishing in offshore marine protected areas. Marine Conservation Society, Ross-on-Wye, UK. https://media.mcsuk.org/documents/marine-unprotected-areas.pdf

Epstein, G., and C. M. Roberts. 2022. Identifying priority areas to manage mobile bottom fishing on seabed carbon in the UK. PLoS Climate 1(9):e0000059. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000059

4C Offshore. 2023. Global offshore renewable map. 4C Offshore, Lowestoft, UK. https://map.4coffshore.com/offshorewind/

Gibson, H., I. S. Stewart, S. Pahl, and A. Stokes. 2016. A “mental models” approach to the communication of subsurface hydrology and hazards. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 20(5):1737-1749. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1737-2016

Gopnik, M., C. Fieseler, L. Cantral, K. McClellan, L. Pendleton, and L. Crowder. 2012. Coming to the table: early stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 36(5):1139-1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.02.012

Graves, C. A., L. Benson, J. Aldridge, W. E. N. Austin, F. Dal Molin, V. G. Fonseca, N. Hicks, C. Hynes, S. Kröger, P. D. Lamb, C. Mason, C. Powell, C. Smeaton, S. K. Wexler, C. Woulds, and R. Parker. 2022. Sedimentary carbon on the continental shelf: emerging capabilities and research priorities for Blue Carbon. Frontiers in Marine Science 9:926215. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.926215

Grorud-Colvert, K., J. Sullivan-Stack, C. Roberts, V. Constant, B. Horta e Costa, E. P. Pike, N. Kingston, D. Laffoley, E. Sala, et al. 2021. The MPA Guide: a framework to achieve global goals for the ocean. Science 373(6560):eabf0861. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf0861

Gustafson, P. 2001. Meanings of place: everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(1):5-16. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0185

Harman, G. 2018. Object-oriented ontology. A new theory of everything. Pelican Books, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.997

Heinatz, K., and M. I. E. Scheffold. 2023. A first estimate of the effect of offshore wind farms on sedimentary organic carbon stocks in the Southern North Sea. Frontiers in Marine Science 9:1068967. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1068967

Hennink, M., and B. N. Kaiser. 2022. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine 292:114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

Hiddink, J. G., S. J. van de Velde, R. A. McConnaughey, E. De Borger, J. Tiano, M. J. Kaiser, A. K. Sweetman, and M. Sciberras. 2023. Quantifying the carbon benefits of ending bottom trawling. Nature 617:E1-E2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06014-7

INFOMAR. 2023. Seabed and Sediment Data. INFOMAR, Geological Survey Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. https://www.infomar.ie/maps/interactive-maps/seabed-and-sediment

Jankowska, E., R. Pelc, J. Alvarez, M. Mehra, and C. J. Frischmann. 2022. Climate benefits from establishing marine protected areas targeted at blue carbon solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(23):e2121705119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2121705119

Jefferson, R., E. McKinley, S. Capstick, S. Fletcher, H. Griffin, and M. Milanese. 2015. Understanding audiences: making public perceptions research matter to marine conservation. Ocean & Coastal Management 115:61-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.014

Jefferson, R., E. McKinley, H. Griffin, A. Nimmo, and S. Fletcher. 2021. Public perceptions of the ocean: lessons for marine conservation from a global research review. Frontiers in Marine Science 8:711245. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.711245

Kaikkonen, L., and I. van Putten. 2021. We may not know much about the deep sea, but do we care about mining it? People and Nature 3(4):843-860. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10224

Kriegl, M., X. E. E. Ilosvay, C. von Dorrien, and D. Oesterwind. 2021. Marine protected areas: at the crossroads of nature conservation and fisheries management. Frontiers in Marine Science 8:676264. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.676264

Legge, O., M. Johnson, N. Hicks, T. Jickells, M. Diesing, J. Aldridge, J. Andrews, Y. Artioli, D. C. E. Bakker, M. T. Burrows, et al. 2020. Carbon on the Northwest European Shelf: contemporary budget and future influences. Frontiers in Marine Science 7:143. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00143

Lotze, H. K., H. Guest, J. O'Leary, A. Tuda, and D. Wallace. 2018. Public perceptions of marine threats and protection from around the world. Ocean & Coastal Management 152:14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.11.004

Lovelock, C. E., and C. M. Duarte. 2019. Dimensions of blue carbon and emerging perspectives. Biology Letters 15(3):20180781. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0781

Lubchenco, J., and K. Grorud-Colvert. 2015. Making waves: the science and politics of ocean protection. Science 350(6259):382-383. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5443

Luisetti, T., S. Ferrini, G. Grilli, T. D. Jickells, H. Kennedy, S. Kröger, I. Lorenzoni, B. Milligan, J. van der Molen, R. Parker, T. Pryce, R. K. Turner, and E. Tyllianakis. 2020. Climate action requires new accounting guidance and governance frameworks to manage carbon in shelf seas. Nature Communications 11:4599. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18242-w

Luisetti, T., R. K. Turner, J. E. Andrews, T. D. Jickells, S. Kröger, M. Diesing, L. Paltriguera, M. T. Johnson, E. R. Parker, D. C. E. Bakker, and K. Weston. 2019. Quantifying and valuing carbon flows and stores in coastal and shelf ecosystems in the UK. Ecosystem Services 35:67-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.013

Macreadie, P. I., A. Anton, J. A. Raven, N. Beaumont, R. M. Connolly, D. A. Friess, J. J. Kelleway, H. Kennedy, T. Kuwae, P. S. Lavery, et al. 2019. The future of Blue Carbon science. Nature Communications 10:3998. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11693-w

Marine Institute. 2023. Ireland’s marine atlas. Marine Institute, Oranmore, Ireland. https://atlas.marine.ie/

Marine Protected Area Advisory Group. 2023. Ecological sensitivity analysis of the western Irish Sea to inform future designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Report for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/4bc80-ecological-sensitivity-analysis-of-irish-sea-main-report/

Mascia, M. B., C. A. Claus, and R. Naidoo. 2010. Impacts of marine protected areas on fishing communities. Conservation Biology 24(5):1424-1429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01523.x

Murphy, P., P. Brereton, and F. O'Brolchain. 2021. New materialism, object-oriented ontology and fictive imaginaries: new directions in energy research. Energy Research & Social Science 79:102146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102146

National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). 2014a. Site synopsis. Site name: Dundalk Bay SAC. Site code: 000455. https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/protected-sites/synopsis/SY000455.pdf

National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). 2014b. Site synopsis. Site name: Dundalk Bay SPA. Site code: 004026. https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/protected-sites/synopsis/SY004026.pdf

Ounanian, K. 2019. Existential fisheries dependence: remaining on the map through fishing. Sociologia Ruralis 59(4):810-830. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12248

Ounanian, K., E. Carballo-Cárdenas, J. P. van Tatenhove, A. Delaney, K. N. Papadopoulou, and C. J. Smith. 2018. Governing marine ecosystem restoration: the role of discourses and uncertainties. Marine Policy 96:136-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.014

Ounanian, K., J. P. Van Tatenhove, C. J. Hansen, A. E. Delaney, H. Bohnstedt, E. Azzopardi, W. Flannery, H. Toonen, J. O. Kenter, L. Ferguson, et al. 2021. Conceptualizing coastal and maritime cultural heritage through communities of meaning and participation. Ocean & Coastal Management 212:105806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105806

Pendleton, L. H., G. N. Ahmadia, H. I. Browman, R. H. Thurstan, D. M. Kaplan, and V. Bartolino. 2018. Debating the effectiveness of marine protected areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science 75(3):1156-1159. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx154

Pomeroy, R., and F. Douvere. 2008. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Marine Policy 32(5):816-822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.017

Rankovic, A., J. Jacquemont, J. Claudet, M. Lecerf, and L. Picourt. 2021. Protecting the ocean: mitigating climate change? State of the evidence and policy recommendations. Ocean & Climate Platform, Paris, France. https://ocean-climate.org/en/protecting-the-ocean-mitigating-climate-change/

Ryan, O. 2022. Dundalk Port to return to local control as Louth County Council hopes to start transfer by end of 2022. The Argus, 17 May. https://www.independent.ie/regionals/louth/dundalk-news/dundalk-port-to-return-to-local-control-as-louth-county-council-hopes-to-start-transfer-by-end-of-2022/41659173.html

Ryder, S. S., J. A. Dickie, and P. Devine-Wright. 2023. “Do you know what's underneath your feet?”: Underground landscapes & place-based risk perceptions of proposed shale gas sites in rural British Communities. Rural Sociology 88(4):1131-1162. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12513

Sala, E., J. Mayorga, D. Bradley, R. B. Cabral, T. B. Atwood, A. Auber, W. Cheung, C. Costello, F. Ferretti, A. M. Friedlander, et al. 2021. Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature 592:397-402. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z

Schadeberg, A., M. Kraan, R. Groeneveld, D. Trilling, and S. Bush. 2023. Science governs the future of the mesopelagic zone. npj Ocean Sustainability 2(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-023-00008-8

Schuldt, J. P., K. A. McComas, and S. E. Byrne. 2016. Communicating about ocean health: theoretical and practical considerations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371(1689):20150214. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0214

Smeaton, C., and W. E. N. Austin. 2022. Quality not quantity: prioritizing the management of sedimentary organic matter across continental shelf seas. Geophysical Research Letters 49:e2021GL097481. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL097481

Steijaert, M. J., G. Schaap, and J. V. T. Riet. 2021. Two-sided science: communicating scientific uncertainty increases trust in scientists and donation intention by decreasing attribution of communicator bias. Communications 46(2):297-316. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2019-0123

Van De Velde, S., V. Van Lancker, S. Hidalgo-Martinez, W. M. Berelson, and F. J. R. Meysman. 2018. Anthropogenic disturbance keeps the coastal seafloor biogeochemistry in a transient state. Scientific Reports 8:5582. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23925-y

Voyer, M., N. Gollan, K. Barclay, and W. Gladstone. 2015. “It’s part of me”; understanding the values, images and principles of coastal users and their influence on the social acceptability of MPAs. Marine Policy 52:93-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.027