www.nature.com/npjoceansustain
REVIEW ARTICLE OPEN
Social equity is key to sustainable ocean governance
Katherine M. Crosman1,2✉, Edward H. Allison3, Yoshitaka Ota1,4, Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor5, Gerald G. Singh6, Wilf Swartz7,
Megan Bailey7, Kate M. Barclay8, Grant Blume9, Mathieu Colléter10, Michael Fabinyi8,11, Elaine M. Faustman12, Russell Fielding13,
P. Joshua Griffin4,14, Quentin Hanich15, Harriet Harden-Davies15, Ryan P. Kelly4, Tiff-Annie Kenny16,17, Terrie Klinger4,
John N. Kittinger18,19, Katrina Nakamura20, Annet P. Pauwelussen21, Sherry Pictou22, Chris Rothschild23, Katherine L. Seto24 and
Ana K. Spalding25,26
Calls to address social equity in ocean governance are expanding. Yet ‘equity’ is seldom clearly defined. Here we present a
framework to support contextually-informed assessment of equity in ocean governance. Guiding questions include: (1) Where and
(2) Why is equity being examined? (3) Equity for or amongst Whom? (4) What is being distributed? (5) When is equity considered?
And (6) How do governance structures impact equity? The framework supports consistent operationalization of equity, challenges
oversimplification, and allows evaluation of progress. It is a step toward securing the equitable ocean governance already reflected
in national and international commitments.
npj Ocean Sustainability             (2022) 1:4 ; https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-022-00001-7
INTRODUCTION aspects of equity discussed in detail below. And salient interna-
Oceans are shared spaces subject to competing claims and tional legal definitions of equity vary, from jurisdictional entitle-
preferences over use1; since the time of the Roman Empire’s Mare ments in the Law of the Sea to intergenerational equity in
Clausum, the oceans have alternately been contested by trade and international environmental law16.
colonial powers, or framed as global commons2. Historical Furthermore, despite the inherently transboundary and
narratives positioning oceans as empty spaces of nature devoid entangled nature of ocean governance issues, ocean governance
of human life, and frontiers to be discovered, exploited, and continues to suffer from a lack of effective coordinating
conserved3, overlook less resourced, less powerful ocean-reliant mechanisms across scales and sectors10,17. Many existing interna-
peoples and their rights and claims4,5. tional ocean governance frameworks lack strong accountability,
Ocean governance that proceeds without a clear and thorough relying instead on voluntary commitments and self-reported
achievements18,19understanding of the complexities of equity is thus unlikely to . Such agreements also often lack the specificity
necessary for implementation20. Uncoordinated, poorly specified,
achieve stated ambitions6,7 that include reducing global economic unaccountable governance allows the powerful to entrench and
inequalities, improving human wellbeing, and sustaining the maintain their dominance. For example, as renewed attention to
biosphere8. This is particularly so in the context of a rapidly and acceleration of the blue economy creates new spaces and
accelerating ocean economy9 and emergent efforts to ensure that opportunities to exert control, or derive or direct benefits, the
this ‘blue growth’ is environmentally sustainable10 and leads to powerful seek to capture those processes and outcomes in order
improved human development outcomes11. to maintain their position21. Less powerful constituencies may be
The Oxford English Dictionary proposes this ‘concrete’ definition further marginalized as a result22.
of equity: ‘What is fair and right; something that is fair and right’. Although complex governance systems can act as a corrective
Such a broad definition, based on concepts that must themselves for overly centralized power, diversification and expansion of the
be defined or interpreted in diverse contexts, provides insufficient set of governance actors may counterintuitively increase power
basis for application12. Influential work from Rawls similarly imbalances23. The diverse institutions and organizations (including
equates equity and justice with fairness13, as does recent work governments, NGOs, community cooperatives, etc.) governing
on equity in marine conservation14. In the ocean governance oceans may exclude specific groups, worldviews, and develop-
literature, Jentoft addresses equity with the question, ‘who are the ment pathways24, and may operate on pre-defined constructions
winners and who are the losers?’15, which elides many of the of resource sustainability that omit consideration of short-term
1Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 2Institute for Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 3WorldFish, Penang, Malaysia. 4School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 5Institute for the
Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 6Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.
7Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada. 8Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 9Evans School of
Public Policy and Governance, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 10Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse/ENSA Toulouse UMR INPT-INRAE AGIR, Toulouse, France.
11Resources, Environment and Development Group, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. 12Department of Environmental &
Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 13HTC Honors College, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC, USA. 14Department of American Indian
Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 15Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW,
Australia. 16Faculté de médecine, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada. 17Axe santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé, Centre de recherche du CHU de
Québec, Québec City, Québec, Canada. 18Center for Oceans, Conservation International, Honolulu, HI, USA. 19Global Futures Lab & Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of
Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. 20The Sustainability Incubator, Honolulu, HI, USA. 21Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen,
The Netherlands. 22Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. 23Information School, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 24Environmental Studies
Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA. 25College of Liberal Arts, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA. 26Smithsonian Tropical Research
Institute, Panama City, Panama. ✉email: katherine.m.crosman@ntnu.no
1234567890():,;
K.M. Crosman et al.
2
challenges faced by many22. As governance decisions seek to make transparent the often obscure choices, assumptions, and
address recurring problems that are not tractable to simple value struggles that underlie equity claims. We hope to support
technical fixes, necessitating deliberation among governance contextually-informed, comprehensive consideration of a multi-
actors25, solutions do not always reflect the perspectives or needs faceted concept that is and will continue to be subject to
of all affected groups24. competing constructions60 and trade-offs across dimensions6,40,61.
Although improving social equity is a stated goal of recent Our approach counters observed moves away from explicit
international agreements for sustainable ocean governance10,26, consideration of equity in large-scale ocean development
instances abound of how current ocean governance creates, schemes11, and responds to calls to systematically include equity
allows, and perpetuates inequity24. For example, powerful vested in ocean governance11,50,62. A more politically-grounded, holistic
interests may adopt exclusionary tactics or state-sanctioned examination of equity, as presented here, may help to highlight
violence to displace Black and Indigenous peoples from the issues that are typically elided in many existing, technocratic
resource access and coastal homelands to which they have legal discussions, but which are nonetheless important on both ethical
and customary rights, with negative effects on food security, and instrumental grounds (e.g., the historical, path-dependent
livelihood, and cultural heritage27,28. Ocean and coastal conserva- nature of inequity). While as a group we represent diverse
tion and management schemes based on scientific principles can backgrounds, traditions, disciplines, and positionalities, the
erase or exploit the situated and relational knowledge systems of dimensions of equity scoped here are drawn primarily from the
local and Indigenous peoples29,30. Although small-scale fishers are liberal political tradition and critiques thereof13,39,42.
prioritized in fisheries management rhetoric, they often remain
locked out of governance processes31. Women are regularly
excluded from fisheries management, from global fisheries A FRAMEWORK TO INCORPORATE EQUITY INTO OCEAN
commitments to participation in ‘community-based’ decision GOVERNANCE
making, and subsequently suffer disproportionate management Our proposed framework comprises a set of equity dimensions
costs32,33. Marine renewable energy development creates new intended for use by ocean governance actors and researchers who
ownership claims and rights to ocean spaces, conflicting with aim to guide ocean policy, marine resource management, blue
other uses34. The seafood available to consumers may have been investment, advocacy, or research to achieve or assess sustainable
produced under conditions that violate international norms, ocean governance. Each dimension centers on an overarching
policies, and conventions protecting the fundamental rights of question. The framework overview presented in Fig. 1 includes the
workers and vulnerable populations, including children35–38. basic dimensions of social equity examined here, as well as the
In general, arguments for engaging with social equity treat it as connections between dimensions and the cumulative and
an inherently valuable governance end in itself, and/or as a means iterative process of applying the framework as a whole. Box 1
to other desired governance ends. These positions are not presents a simplified case example designed to show an initial
mutually exclusive. The former approach frames the pursuit of application of the framework.
social equity as a moral duty and the primary motivator of social The entry point and first dimension of the framework are
institutions13,39,40. The latter asserts that social equity underpins or encapsulated in the question ‘Where—in what place(s) and
facilitates desired outcomes including political legitimacy and context(s)—is equity being examined or addressed?’ The mani-
political, social, and environmental sustainability7,41–46, usually as festations, impacts, and correctives for existing ocean inequities
defined by hegemonic institutions47. In the specific case of ocean can only be understood in situ: the lived experience of equity is
governance, promoting social equity is typically framed as mediated by the histories, cultures, and economic and governance
instrumental to achieving sustainability goals45: oceanic and systems and structures that attach to geopolitical context6,14,63.
coastal peoples living in economic, social, or other kinds of Once this dimension of equity is established, the next question is
precarity are unable to invest in longer-term resource stewardship ‘Why is equity being examined or considered in this work?’,
while their short-term needs remain unmet48, or while allocation referring to the intended ends of engaging with equity.
of ocean space and resources foments conflict and threatens Governance actors and researchers should clearly establish and/
human security49. Existing international agreements relevant to or understand the equity goals of their work and the systems they
ocean governance link prioritization of social equity to economic study, in order to guide examination of subsequent dimensions
expansion50, accounting of ocean benefits51, emerging technolo- and lay the groundwork for evaluation.
gies52,53, and much broader development aspirations46. Together, the initial two questions set the stage for considera-
Relatedly, oceans play a key role in regulating global climate, a tion of the following three dimensions, encapsulated in these
core sustainability issue54. Climate change impacts are projected three questions: ‘Equity for or amongst whom?’ ‘What is being
to be uneven across states, and the novel challenges and distributed?’ and ‘When—at which stage(s)—in governance or
opportunities associated with climate change will be unevenly research processes is equity being forwarded or considered?’
distributed across different users of marine resources, altering These dimensions are iterative, as the answer(s) to one may
power dynamics55. Furthermore, climate impacts are entangled depend on or be derived from the answer(s) to another, with the
with pre-existing inequities56. Coastal Indigenous peoples, for appropriate starting point dependent on governance or
example, face disproportionate climate impacts57. research focus.
With this Review, we intend to address a complex, contested, The framework closes with a final question: ‘How do (or might)
and ill-defined concept by (1) synthesizing equity considerations governance structures mediate, create, or undermine equity?’ This
relevant to ocean governance; and (2) building a framework to dimension is treated last as the answer to each preceding
structure conceptual and applied efforts to incorporate social question improves our ability to identify proximate and distal
equity into ocean governance. The interdisciplinary, critical causes as well as potential correctives. The question of ‘how’ may
review58 is based on an iterative Google Scholar search initially be particularly contentious in application; indeed, equity-based
focused on contemporary social theory, broader equity discus- objections to potential governance changes should be examined
sions, and previously developed frameworks, extended via a in order to determine whether the responses to previous
collaborative, deliberative expert-elicitation process45,59 with 27 questions need rethinking.
ocean governance experts who focus on equity in their own work While our framework does not offer simple answers, its details
(see Supplementary Methods). set the terms of debate and create grounds for comparison, and
Instead of providing a single definition or prescription, we evaluation of progress towards equity goals. Deeper exploration of
intend this work to enable critical consideration of equity, and to each framework dimension is presented below.
npj Ocean Sustainability (2022)     4 
1234567890():,;
K.M. Crosman et al.
3
Fig. 1 The dimensions of social equity for ocean governance: a framework. Courtesy of Valerie Brodnikova.
Where—in what place(s) and context(s)—is equity being implementing marine protected areas are subject to power
examined or addressed? hierarchies embedded in inequitable relations between local
Social equity is both a characteristic of the society in which communities, NGOs, and government actors in terms of who
governance occurs and an outcome of governance60,61,64. Under- decides, who represents whom, and who is accountable to
whom74,75
standing specific places and geopolitical, social, and cultural .
contexts/worldviews is foundational to understanding and center-
ing social equity6,63. Why is equity being examined or addressed?
Inequity is path-dependent64,65. Structural inequities rooted in The second dimension of equity encourages researchers and
historic and ongoing biases and related power dynamics governance actors to define their intended ends, or what they
(including those driving and driven by patriarchy, colonialism, hope to accomplish vis-à-vis equity in the specific context(s) and
genocide, slavery, war, social conflict, etc.) resonate around the place(s) in which they work. Establishing concrete equity goals will
world today, with impacts on environmental conditions66 as well assist practitioners in their efforts to scope, design, and evaluate
as the present-day freedoms of marginalized people to realize governance interventions with an equity lens76. Prior work that
their full capabilities40, their access to food and greater well-
being67
examines equity in payment for ecosystem services schemes
, their inclusion in governance and/or rights to self-
determination, and their vulnerability to environmental change68
suggests three potential categories of ends: ‘no equity goals’ (i.e.,
. equity is not a consideration), ‘do no harm,’ and ‘advance equity’
Centering social equity in ocean governance requires that (that is, attempt to forward social equity, given the context or
researchers and governance actors begin from an understanding ‘Where’, as described above)61. We add the potential goal of
of the pre-existing inequities in the contexts in which they
work14,24–26,61,69
restorative justice, understood to be a collective undertaking to
. Consideration of research and governance reveal, heal and redress the legacies of past injustice/inequity77.
context enables more informed, specific, and actionable under- Equity goals are not always made explicit and the above
standings of equity, and may in turn be used to scope, select, and categories may not always be clear-cut in application. Further-
accomplish equity-related governance goals through application more, goals may evolve during governance processes25. However,
of the rest of the framework. implicit selection of ‘no equity goals’ may reinforce existing
Understanding place and context means seeing, acknowl- inequities that are problematic on both fundamental and
edging, and respecting applicable histories and contemporary instrumental grounds. For example, individual transferable quotas
hierarchies of power and marginalization. At the international were widely adopted in fisheries management with the intention
scale, for example, where institutions exist to coordinate ocean of realizing economically efficient allocation, with little upfront
governance, different levels of political and economic power attention to potential equity effects78. The resulting consolidation
between nation-states can shape access to marine resources in of quotas in the hands of powerful actors reinforces power
more or less equitable ways, such as through trade or the activities
of distant water fisheries70,71 hierarchies that lock small-scale fishers and others out of decision-
. Within nations, status derived from making and into exploitative leasing arrangements79ascriptive characteristics (such as gender, race, ethnicity, etc.) .
heavily influence place-based activities and the nature and
outcomes of and ocean governance interventions, as is the case Equity for or amongst whom?
in the coastal Philippines for groups defined by ethnicity and time The third, fourth, and fifth questions in our framework should be
of migration72,73. Similarly, governance processes such as considered iteratively, but will be addressed in turn here for the
npj Ocean Sustainability (2022)     4 
K.M. Crosman et al.
4
level (e.g., national) equity comparisons made on geopolitical
Box 1 Case application of the framework: fisheries access in Fiji grounds ignore both powerful transnational actors and globalized
Where is equity being examined or addressed? Fijian coastal fisheries. In Fiji, inequities that transcend the boundaries of nation-states60, such
practical access to coastal fisheries is mediated by ethnicity and descent. Fiji was as those based on gender, race, and class. Relatedly, national-level
historically inhabited primarily by Indigenous Pacific Islanders with roots in equity comparisons are of particular concern for those Indigenous
Melanesia and Polynesia. During British colonial rule (1874–1970), indentured
laborers were brought from India to work the islands’ sugar cane fields. The polities (such as Canadian First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and Native
American tribes) whose ‘nested sovereignty’88contemporary legacy of British colonial policies includes distinct sets of rights is often rendered
reserved for iTaukei (Indigenous) Fijians versus Indo-Fijians and others. While all invisible by comparisons at this scale.
Fijians have the de jure right to fish for subsistence, iTaukei Fijians have special Social groups may also be used as the grounds for equity
customary rights to traditional coastal fishing grounds129. These grounds
dominate Fijian coastal waters and are often adjacent to traditional iTaukei comparisons64,69, as is the case when governance actors or
villages. For non-rights holders, commercial fishing access in traditional grounds scholars examine disparate ocean governance impacts on groups
is often contingent on goodwill payments to local chiefs, despite official delineated by ascriptive characteristics such as gender, race,
prohibition of that practice129. ethnicity, etc. Levels may be combined in equity comparisons: for
Why—to what ends—is equity being considered or addressed? To advance example, racial or ethnic groups within communities89equity. Our goal is to advance equity of access to fisheries, given current or across
inequities elucidated above. national boundaries. However, groups defined on a single
Equity for or amongst whom? iTaukei and Indo-Fijians. Our level of dimension (e.g., gender) risk obscuring the different experiences
comparison is social group, and we limit our comparison to the two largest of non-homogeneous group members: intersectional analysis may
social groups in Fiji: Fijians of iTaukei descent, and Fijians of Indian descent.
What is being distributed? Access to fisheries as an input into access to fruitfully address this oversight63. Additional levels of comparison
healthy food. We focus on access to fisheries as an input into access to healthy are also possible; in discussions of fisheries management, for
foods. Indo-Fijians fish significantly less, and purchase more of the fish they do example, equity comparisons are commonly made between
eat, than their iTaukei counterparts130. Goodwill payments create additional groups delineated by fisheries sectors (e.g., industrial vs. small-
financial stress and can result in food insecurity for Indo-Fijians who rely on sales scale, subsistence vs. commercial)90 or gear types91of their catch to purchase other foods129. .
When—at which stage(s)—in governance or research processes is equity The second component of the ‘whom’ dimension is the ‘bounds
being forwarded or considered? Governance outcomes. Our focus on access to of the community of equals,’80 which delimit which nations,
fish as food implies focus on governance outcomes. groups, individuals, etc. are included in or excluded from the
Iterate. The foregoing shows that the current system results in inequitable access
to fisheries, and thus healthy food, to the disadvantage of Indo-Fijians. This is entities being compared. Simply put: at a given level of
true, as far as it goes, and under the specific terms elucidated above. However, comparison, who is in, and who is out? While aspirational
the example also illustrates how the framework can draw attention to what is documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
omitted from consideration. Omissions from the above include (but are not explicitly reject any bounds on the community of equal
limited to): (1) deep engagement with historical colonization and current political
context, and the power, social roles, demographics, and experiences of the two individuals92, theory and application often set community bounds
primary populations of interest; (2) non-commensurability of the compared based on criteria like membership (e.g., citizenship status or legal
groups, based on Indigenous sovereignty and concomitant preferential rights to rights) or ascriptive characteristics64,65. Equity comparisons may
historical lands and waters and the resources therein; (3) broader inquiry into also include future, or only current, generations of humans, as well
healthy food access (subsistence foods beyond fish, etc.); and (4) how other
stages of governance influence fishing access—for example, monitoring and as differential treatment of present and future costs and benefits.
enforcement of existing rules. If we use the framework as intended, these Strong arguments for consideration of future generations in ocean
omissions prompt us to revisit our answers to each question above. governance derive from sustainability discourse, which requires
How do (or might) governance structures mediate, create, or undermine consideration of intergenerational equity by definition41,83.
equity? In this case, iterative application of the framework moves us away from
simplistic recommendations that might be objected to on equity grounds (such Failing to engage with the practical bounds of the community
as direct allocation of a proportional share of catch to Indo-Fijians), and towards of equals can lead to false conclusions and implementation
recommendations that take a more holistic approach. Indigenous rights and failures. Some Indonesian MPAs have failed because outreach and
Indo-Fijian fishing access might both be served, for instance, by allocational participation programs have treated local villages as communities
strategies that give priority to the claims of traditional rights-holders or by a
collaborative fisheries governance reform process that gives power and voice to of equals living in one place, leaving out the asymmetric power
all affected groups. relations of debt and loyalty between fishers, traders, and their
Space limitations preclude full discussion of potential iterations and pathways patrons74,93. And level and bounds can interact in damaging ways
through the framework. However, we hope this very simplified example for groups that fall outside entrenched social divisions. Sea-based
demonstrates how framework use can improve transparency and clarify the
assumptions and tacit decisions underpinning a specific application of the term and sea nomadic societies, such as the Bajau and Orang Laut of
‘equity.’ This in turn helps to identify areas of contention, grounds for Southeast Asia, are systematically excluded from ocean govern-
comparison, and evaluation of progress, and potential solutions. ance processes. As mobile, trans-local, or even stateless peoples,
they fall outside national-level comparisons as well as established
categories of ‘citizens’, ‘local communities’, and ‘Indigenous
sake of clarity. Each of them builds on the foundation of the first peoples’, further marginalizing them from ocean governance93,94.
two dimensions. Having explored the influence of place and And although equity comparisons framed around stakeholders
context, and established clear goals, we turn our attention to are common95,96, they are often problematic across both
whom equity is for or amongst. components discussed above. First, the term ‘stakeholders’
The first component of this dimension is the hierarchical level(s) obscures differences in the basis and nature of claims between
of social organization at which equity comparisons are different groups. Specifically, the term diminishes customary,
made61,80,81: for example, on geographic/geopolitical grounds, traditional, or treaty rights-holders’ claims to a ‘stake’ rather than a
including between groups of nations82, nations83, regions43,84, and sovereign right; for this reason, many Indigenous rights-holders
communities43. Beyond national jurisdiction, the seabed and its object to the term. Second, naïve formulations of stakeholders
mineral resources may be considered the ‘common heritage of gloss over differences in preference and experience that divide
[hu]mankind’, yet capacity imbalances and conflicting commercial individuals within stakeholder groups. Women, for instance, may
and ecological imperatives result in inequities of access between face double exclusion when their role in ocean practices is
states85. And national-level equity comparisons are a key overlooked or undervalued97. Third, the experience and impacts of
component in fisheries negotiations between developed states ocean governance on different stakeholder groups may be
and developing states, and distant water fishing flag states and incommensurable: for example, oil and gas industry actors and
coastal states86. Indeed, such negotiations are structured by equity coastal communities may have similar, overlapping, or entirely
considerations around conservation burden and sovereignty over separate understandings and experiences of the costs and
coastal resources87. Despite their prevalence, however, higher- benefits of coastal development. Efforts to render impacts
npj Ocean Sustainability (2022)     4 
K.M. Crosman et al.
5
commensurable through economic valuation may mask and/or Organization’s Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines recognize the
perpetuate inequity by ignoring other values98, creating false importance of small-scale fishers to coastal livelihoods and food
equivalencies, and tacitly privileging existing powerholders. security, small-scale fishers remain unorganized and socially and
Fourth, efforts to engage stakeholders through participation in politically marginalized in many contexts31. Resulting representa-
ocean governance routinely omit less politically or economically tion failures have manifested in Marine Spatial Planning under-
powerful and organized voices from consideration99, as these takings110,111 as well as in Regional Advisory Council processes in
groups are seen as difficult to engage with, or unnecessary to the European Union112.
governance success due to their perceived inability to effectively
object. This is especially the case where privileged organizations When—at which stage(s) of governance or research processes
(e.g., corporations, nonprofits) are tasked with leading stakeholder —is equity considered or addressed?
engagement, despite being stakeholders themselves. The fourth framework dimension identifies when, in an ocean
Finally, here we primarily consider social equity as applied to governance and research process, equity is considered or cen-
human populations. However, Indigenous and multispecies scholar- tered26,69. The conservation literature focuses primarily on equity as
ship challenge the notion that the social realm is limited to humans,
seeing humans as socially engaged with other beings30,100
an outcome (for example, in the distribution of benefits from
like conservation), or in the implementation phase of policy6; however,
corals29 and whales101. Indeed, non-human beings, ecosystems, and incorporating equity thinking early and throughout ocean govern-
natural features such as rivers are increasingly acknowledged as not ance processes may improve equity26. Indigenous and Aboriginal
only objects of care but also subjects of rights, sometimes with groups’ early engagement in marine governance initiatives in
accompanying governance frameworks that endow them with legal Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, for instance, suggest that
personhood, or empower local custodians to give voice to nature in involvement in organizing and negotiating before precedents are set
decision making102,103. The answer to ‘Equity for or amongst whom’ led to more equitable stakes in marine economic development113.
may thus include species or ecosystems. Conversely, issues of equity addressed toward the end of regional
ocean governance processes, such as when Marine Spatial Planning
What is being distributed? stakeholder participation occurs largely after decisions have been
The fourth framework dimension further specifies equity in made, suggests to participants that ocean governance processes
exclude less powerful stakeholders by design99application by directing focus to that which is being distributed. .
Distributional objects may be broadly categorized, such as rights,
conditions, or capabilities, as is common in theoretical/aspira- How do (or might) governance structures mediate, improve,
tional, liberal formulations of equity39,40,42,46,92. More specific or undermine equity?
distributional objects commonly discussed in ocean governance The framework closes by directing attention to how existing
fora include access to space (e.g., fishing grounds104) and governance structures, or proposed governance changes, med-
resources (e.g., seabed mineral resources85), and the costs and iate, improve, or undermine equity. This dimension addresses the
benefits of management (e.g., conservation burden20), develop- equity effects of the specific institutional structures and govern-
ment (e.g., of marine genetic resources52), and environmental ance processes at play in the context under consideration.
change (e.g., sea-level rise105). The first component of this dimension refers to what is variously
Recognition, focusing on the distribution of attention and termed procedural justice or procedural equity6,42,61. It is closely
discursive power, is also subject to distribution. Examining the related to the questions of recognition and representation raised
distribution of recognition requires explicit attention to the frames above, but focuses on the governance processes and procedures
that ocean governance actors, researchers, and the governed impose by which recognition and representation are accomplished: that
or contend with22. Governance actors and the governed may come is, decisions and rules structuring how decisions and rules are
from different cultures with different culturally-informed worldviews made (i.e., collective choice and constitutional-level rules114).
and belief systems6,7,14,44,60. Furthermore, multiple worldviews can be Participation and representation are commonly forwarded
held simultaneously within a single management coalition or, strategies to improve social equity through proce-
indeed, within the mind of a single individual106. Addressing dure6,7,31,43,44,61,69,83,104,115. In Arctic Alaska, for example, coopera-
recognition in distribution necessitates, however, moving beyond tive Bowhead whale management decision-making between
acknowledging difference to interrogating the extent to which federal agencies and Indigenous Iñupiat community representa-
different worldviews, assumptions, etc., are given power, and the tives balances conservation and Indigenous whaling, yielding
extent to which such differences are actively incorporated into more equitable recognition of cultural values101. However, the
governance processes60. For instance, the use of behavioral science details of participation and representation are often poorly or
strategies in marine conservation rests on largely unspoken problematically specified in application116. Participation that
assumptions about the universality of human cognition and assigns decision-making power to participants is different to
behavior, failing to recognize evidence that the behavioral responses participation without such decision-making power117, and parti-
found in primarily “WEIRD” (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, cipation in defining an ocean governance problem is different to
democratic) study populations have limited generalizability to other participation in implementing solutions. And as new actors enter
demographics107,108. As an example, despite evidence from WEIRD ocean governance fora, perhaps under the rationale of participa-
contexts that descriptive norms (i.e., individual perceptions of others’ tion as a means to increase equity and effectiveness15,31, new
likely behavior) are positively related to individual behavioral choice, power dynamics are introduced and representation takes new
Indonesian coastal dwellers’ descriptive norms showed no such forms23. In Fiji, for example, villagers who perceive NGO-mediated
relationship with their intentions to fish sustainably or responsibly community participation in governance of traditional fishing
dispose of waste109. grounds to have been limited solely to accepting area closures
Representation, focusing on the distribution of political power, do not fully implement and comply with those closures118.
is also subject to distribution. Representation includes access to Similarly, the equity effects of representation will vary with how
and involvement in governance processes43,60; voice, and the representatives are elected or appointed, the extent and type(s) of
influence and impact of voice across governance stages26; and the power they hold, and by whom and how they are held
distribution of decision-making power44. High-level efforts to accountable. Accountability, and thus representation, may be
improve representation do not always lead to lower-level change. diluted where the less powerful are beholden to the more
For instance, although the 2014 UN Food and Agriculture powerful, who themselves face mixed incentives23—for example,
npj Ocean Sustainability (2022)     4 
K.M. Crosman et al.
6
where corporate actors are tasked with designing or implement-
ing equity improvements. Similarly, in the non-profit sector, Box 2 Centering equity in ocean governance: Getting started
smaller NGOs must respond to the demands of larger organiza- ☐ 1. Where—in what place(s) and context(s)—is equity being examined or
tions that act as funding conduits, and both smaller and larger addressed?
organizations must meet the preferences of funders119. In Papua Action: Locate specific, existing inequities and their distal and proximate drivers
New Guinea, for example, funders’ emphasis on coral reef in the place(s) and context(s) under consideration.
conservation led a large non-profit to deprioritize the demands Recommendations:
of the local populations the NGO claimed to serve120. And when ● Identify baseline societal power dynamic and their interactions, histories
non-local conservationists advocate for local change, or when and expressions
● Consider how these shape or impact or research and governance in this
well-funded, high-profile researchers from the Global North context
overshadow colleagues from the Global South121, questions of
representativeness also arise. Across such cases, legitimacy of ☐ 2. Why—to what end—is equity being examined or addressed?
representatives can only be granted by those being represented. Action: Establish clear equity goals for the governance intervention or research
Transparency, another component of procedural justice, hinges undertaking.
on the importance of information as a distributional object, how Recommendations:
● Seek to improve the conditions identified under ‘Where’
distribution of information is accomplished, and to what equity ● Identify contextually appropriate measurement to track progress toward
effects. Transparency may enable both informed participation14 equity goals
and accountability122, thereby exerting a compound effect on
☐ 3. Equity for or amongst whom? (iterative with 4 and 5)
procedural justice. However, transparency as an equity strategy
falters at the ‘digital divide’: inequitable access to technology and Action: Specify the groups for or amongst whom equity is being assessed, and
data122 and inequitable capabilities to process available informa- identify who is empowered/ disempowered/excluded by group definitions
Recommendations:
tion. In international fisheries negotiations and management, for ● Make equity comparisons explicit on both level of comparison and
example, transparency can support equitable participation and community bounds
decision making by providing a more level playing field, enabling ● Consider intergenerational impacts
●
broader access to necessary data, and ensuring accountability in Ensure that the groups underpinning comparisons are commensurate
● Design data collection and evaluation at finer scales to capture inequities
decision making and implementation123. But calls for transparency mediated by group membership and intersectionalities
may conflict with states’ strategic interest in the control of
information122 and undermine collective strategies if developing ☐ 4. What is being distributed? (iterative with 3 and 5)
states are unable to confidentially develop mutual positions to Action: Specify what objects are being distributed by or in the research or
mitigate power imbalances123. governance intervention
The second component of the ‘how’ dimension focuses on Recommendations:
● Identify the objects (goods, services, costs, benefits, rights, access, etc.)
allocative strategies: the specific mechanisms by which distribu- being distributed, including non-financial costs and benefits
tion is accomplished. Nowhere is the positional and contested ● Identify and acknowledge the distribution of discursive power (attention to
nature of equity more obvious than in the question of allocation. different frames, worldviews, and underlying assumptions)—recognition—
In some cases equitable allocation may be defined as pure and its equity effects
● Identify and acknowledge the distribution of political power (voice,
equality, whereby everyone gets an equal share of a given decision-making, veto, etc.)—representation—and its equity effects
distributional object6,7,80,124, or, alternatively, equal chance of
receiving it (e.g., a lottery) or equal voice in distribution ☐ 5. When—at which stage(s) of governance or research processes—is equity
considered or addressed? (iterative with 3 and 4)
(distribution according to the results of a full-franchise equal
vote)76,124. Yet equality, however, construed, ignores rights-based Action: Identify or specify the stages at which equity is or will be considered in
and need-based claims76,80,124 grounded in place and context, the research or governance initiative
Recommendations:
meaning that equal allocation is often inequitable in effect. ● Prioritize equity early on and throughout research and governance
Allocation by need comes under challenge by those who prefer processes
allocation by effort7,80, performance80, merit76,124, competition124,
economic demand124, value41, ascriptive characteristics64,124
☐ 6. How do (or can) governance structures mediate, improve, or undermine
, equity?
historical precedent125, or on some other basis. Some foregoing
criteria are subjective and difficult to operationalize, like merit, and Action: Identify how existing governance institutions and processes structure
access to power and resources, potential governance alternatives, and associated
others, like economic demand or willingness to pay, reflect equity effects
inherently inequitable assumptions41. Unsurprisingly, allocation is Recommendations:
passionately debated in ocean governance: for transboundary ● Grapple with how existing governance structures create and address
tuna, reaching consensus on equitable allocation frameworks has inequities of voice, decision-making power, and discursive power
● Make explicit the allocative criteria in use and their equity ramifications
been problematic across regional fisheries management organiza- across dimensions
tions125, with discussions in the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission ● Identify potential correctives grounded in the answers to each framework
making little progress after a decade of negotiations126. question above
RECONSTRUCTING SOCIAL EQUITY
Thus, we add an additional, aspirational question: How can the
Applied in its entirety (Box 2) the framework allows researchers process of delineating social equity for ocean governance itself be
and governance actors to make progress toward operationalizing
social equity. However, as noted at the outset, a majority of made more equitable61? How can governance actors and
scholarly work cited here is grounded in liberal political theory and researchers incorporate underrepresented perspectives not only
governance systems, although equity and related concepts are a into ocean governance, but also into the framing and conceptual
feature of diverse traditions relevant to ocean governance127. It scoping process undertaken here? Answering this question will
should be clear from the preceding discussion that operationaliz- require self-reflection: What might be missing from the framework
ing equity requires input from a variety of traditions and voices128: presented here? How are we making decisions about each of the
for example, Indigenous frames that embrace a relational above dimensions? What deep assumptions and biases are
perspective whereby equity considerations encompass the well- influencing our choices and interpretations, and how can we
being of both human and non-human ecologies30. transcend them?
npj Ocean Sustainability (2022)     4 
K.M. Crosman et al.
7
APPLYING EQUITY 20. Azmi, K., Davis, R., Hanich, Q. & Vrahnos, A. Defining a disproportionate burden
Our primary intention here is to support and structure efforts to in transboundary fisheries: lessons from international law. Mar. Policy 70,
critically and holistically engage with equity issues, as a first step 164–173 (2016).
to forwarding social equity in ocean governance. It is our hope 21. Hicks, C. C. & Childs, J. Securing the blue: political ecologies of the blue economy
in Africa. J. Polit. Ecol. 26, (2019).
that this framework will be applied, studied, and evaluated in 22. Chuenpagdee, R. & Song, A. M. Institutional thinking in fisheries governance:
follow-up research in different sectors and geographies. broadening perspectives. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 4, 309–315 (2012).
The above dimensions of social equity may be iteratively 23. Armitage, D., de Loë, R. & Plummer, R. Environmental governance and its
applied to an ocean governance or research context through the implications for conservation practice. Conserv. Lett. 5, 245–255 (2012).
checklist presented in Box 2. The framework dimensions are 24. Blythe, J. L., Armitage, D., Bennett, N. J., Silver, J. J. & Song, A. M. The politics of
recognizably distinct but deeply intertwined: each dimension ocean governance transformations. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 634718 (2021).
speaks to and influences the others. For this reason, although 25. Jentoft, S. & Chuenpagdee, R. Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked
applicability of each dimension may vary by context, we problem. Mar. Policy 33, 553–560 (2009).
recommend that researchers and governance actors apply this 26. Friedman, R. S. et al. How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity
in conservation research. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 053001 (2018).
framework in its entirety in their work. The question(s) underlying 27. Vacanti Brondo, K. & Bown, N. Neoliberal conservation, garifuna territorial rights
each framework dimension should be carefully considered, even if and resource management in the cayos cochinos marine protected area. Con-
the dimension does not initially seem relevant. serv. Soc 9, 91 (2011).
Thus applied, the framework allows us to set clearer, more 28. Oslender, U. Violence in development: the logic of forced displacement on
comprehensive objectives, improve evaluation of ocean govern- Colombia’s Pacific coast. Dev. Pract. 17, 752–764 (2007).
ance, identify how and where equity is currently insufficiently or 29. Pauwelussen, A. & Verschoor, G. M. Amphibious encounters: coral and
ineffectively addressed, and identify trade-offs between different people in conservation outreach in Indonesia. Engag. Sci. Technol. Soc. 3, 292
dimensions of equity, all in service of desired governance (2017).
outcomes and impacts. Only by explicitly and systematically 30. Pictou, S. in Transcontinental Dialogues: Activist Alliances with Indigenous Peoples
of Canada, Mexico, and Australia (eds Hernández Castillo, R. A., Hutchings, S. &
addressing equity in ocean governance processes and outcomes Noble, B.) (The University of Arizona Press, 2019).
will it be possible to assert a better future for ocean spaces, 31. Jentoft, S. & Chuenpagdee, R. in Interactive Governance for Small-Scale Fisheries
resources, and the people who rely on them. Vol. 13 (Springer International Publishing, 2015).
32. Rohe, J., Schlüter, A. & Ferse, S. C. A. A gender lens on women’s harvesting
Received: 19 November 2021; Accepted: 6 June 2022; activities and interactions with local marine governance in a South Pacific
fishing community. Marit. Stud. 17, 155–162 (2018).
33. Lawless, S., Cohen, P. J., Mangubhai, S., Kleiber, D. & Morrison, T. H. Gender
equality is diluted in commitments made to small-scale fisheries. World Dev.
140, 105348 (2021).
34. Wright, G. Marine governance in an industrialised ocean: a case study of the
REFERENCES emerging marine renewable energy industry. Mar. Policy 52, 77–84 (2015).
1. Dunn, D. C., Ortuño Crespo, G. & Halpen, P. N. in Predicting Future Oceans (eds 35. Kittinger, J. N. et al. Committing to socially responsible seafood. Science 356,
Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Cheung, W. W. L. & Ota, Y.) (Elsevier, 2019). 912–913 (2017).
2. Allison, E. H. Big laws, small catches: global ocean governance and the fisheries 36. Nakamura, K. et al. Seeing slavery in seafood supply chains. Sci. Adv. 4, e1701833
crisis. J. Int. Dev. 13, 933–950 (2001). (2018).
3. Pálsson, G. in The Politics of Fishing (ed. Gray, T. S.) (Palgrave Macmillan Limited, 37. U.S. Department of Labor. List of Goods Made with Forced and Child Labor.
2016). https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ILAB/child_labor_reports/tda2019/
4. Aswani, S. et al. Marine resource management and conservation in the 2020_TVPRA_List_Online_Final.pdf (2020).
Anthropocene. Environ. Conserv. 45, 192–202 (2018). 38. Sweeney, M. SDG 14 and Children’s Human Rights 19, https://oneoc
5. Bennett, N. J., Blythe, J., White, C. S. & Campero, C. Blue growth and blue justice: eanhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SDG-14-and-children-rights-REPO
ten risks and solutions for the ocean economy. Mar. Policy 125, 104387 (2021). RT.pdf (2021).
6. Law, E. A. et al. Equity trade-offs in conservation decision making: equity in 39. Sen, A. The Idea of Justice (Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2011).
decision making. Conserv. Biol. 32, 294–303 (2018). 40. Nussbaum, M. C. Creating Capabilities: the Human Development Approach (The
7. Schreckenberg, K., Franks, P., Martin, A. & Lang, B. Unpacking equity for pro- Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013).
tected area conservation. PARKS 22, 11–28 (2016). 41. Beder, S. Costing the Earth: equity, sustainable development and environmental
8. The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy. Transformations for a economics. N. Z. J. Environ. Law 4, 227–243 (2000).
Sustainable Ocean Economy: A Vision for Protection, Production and Prosperity. 42. Rawls, J. Justice as Fairness: a Restatement (Harvard University Press, 2001).
https://www.oceanpanel.org/ocean-action/files/transformations-sustainable- 43. Halpern, B. S. et al. Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-
ocean-economy-eng.pdf (2020). offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad.
9. Jouffray, J.-B., Blasiak, R., Norström, A. V., Österblom, H. & Nyström, M. The blue Sci. USA 110, 6229–6234 (2013).
acceleration: the trajectory of human expansion into the ocean. One Earth 2, 44. Pascual, U. et al. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services.
43–54 (2020). BioScience 64, 1027–1036 (2014).
10. Lubchenco, J., Haugan, P. M. & Pangestu, M. E. Five priorities for a sustainable 45. Singh, G. G. et al. Climate impacts on the ocean are making the Sustainable
ocean economy. Nature 588, 30–32 (2020). Development Goals a moving target travelling away from us. People Nat. 1,
11. Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M. et al. Enabling conditions for an equitable and 317–330 (2019).
sustainable blue economy. Nature 591, 396–401 (2021). 46. U.N. General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
12. Brodie Rudolph, T. et al. A transition to sustainable ocean governance. Nat. Development, 21 October 2015, A/RES/70/1. https://www.refworld.org/docid/
Commun. 11, 3600. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17410-2 (2020). 57b6e3e44.html (2015).
13. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999). 47. Okereke, C. Equity norms in global environmental governance. Glob. Environ.
14. Bennett, N. J. et al. Advancing social equity in and through marine conservation. Polit. 8, 25–50 (2008).
Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 711538 (2021). 48. Teh, L. S. L., Teh, L. C. L., Sumaila, U. R. & Cheung, W. Time discounting and the
15. Jentoft, S. Life Above Water (TBTI Global, 2019). overexploitation of coral reefs. Environ. Resour. Econ 61, 91–114 (2015).
16. Titi, C. The Function of Equity in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2021). 49. Spijkers, J. et al. Marine fisheries and future ocean conflict. Fish Fish 19, 798–806
17. Crowder, L. B. et al. Resolving mismatches in U.S. ocean governance. Science (2018).
313, 617–618 (2006). 50. Österblom, H. et al. Towards Ocean Equity. www.oceanpanel.org/how-distribute-
18. Packer, H., Swartz, W., Ota, Y. & Bailey, M. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) benefits-ocean-equitably (2020).
practices of the largest seafood suppliers in the wild capture fisheries sector: 51. Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272
from vision to action. Sustainability 11, 2254 (2019). (2018).
19. FAO. Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the 52. Blasiak, R. et al. The ocean genome and future prospects for conservation and
Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (Rome, 2015). equity. Nat. Sustain 3, 588–596 (2020).
npj Ocean Sustainability (2022)     4 
K.M. Crosman et al.
8
53. Laird, S. A. & Wynberg, R. P. Locating responsible research and innovation within 86. Hanich, Q. Distributing the bigeye conservation burden in the western and
access and benefit sharing spaces of the convention on biological diversity: the central pacific fisheries. Mar. Policy 36, 327–332 (2012).
challenge of emerging technologies. NanoEthics 10, 189–200 (2016). 87. Hanich, Q. & Ota, Y. Moving beyond rights-based management: a transparent
54. IPCC. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate approach to distributing the conservation burden and benefit in tuna fisheries.
(2019). Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 28, 135–170 (2013).
55. Frazão Santos, C. et al. Integrating climate change in ocean planning. Nat. 88. Simpson, A. Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States
Sustain. 3, 505–516 (2020). (Duke University Press, 2014).
56. Griffin, P. J. Pacing climate precarity: food, care and sovereignty in Iñupiaq 89. Spalding, A. K. Towards a political ecology of lifestyle migration: local perspectives
Alaska. Med. Anthropol. 39, 333–347 (2020). on socio‐ecological change in Bocas del Toro, Panama. Area 52, 539–546 (2020).
57. Maldonado, J. et al. Engagement with indigenous peoples and honoring tra- 90. Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M. et al. Social equity and benefits as the nexus of a
ditional knowledge systems. Clim. Change 135, 111–126 (2016). transformative Blue Economy: a sectoral review of implications. Mar. Policy 109,
58. Grant, M. & Booth, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and 103702 (2019).
associated methologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26, 91–108 (2009). 91. Kockel, A., Ban, N. C., Costa, M. & Dearden, P. Evaluating approaches for scaling‐
59. Singh, G. G. et al. Group elicitations yield more consistent, yet more uncertain up community‐based marine‐protected areas into socially equitable and eco-
experts in understanding risks to ecosystem services in New Zealand bays. PLoS logically representative networks. Conserv. Biol. 34, 137–147 (2020).
ONE 12, e0182233 (2017). 92. U.N. General Assembly. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December
60. Fraser, N. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World 1948, 217A (III). https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html (1948).
(Columbia University Press, 2009). 93. Pauwelussen, A. P. The moves of a Bajau middlewoman: understanding the
61. McDermott, M., Mahanty, S. & Schreckenberg, K. Examining equity: a multi- disparity between trade networks and marine conservation. Anthropol. Forum
dimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. 25, 329–349 (2015).
Environ. Sci. Policy 33, 416–427 (2013). 94. Clifton, J. et al. Statelessness and conservation: exploring the implications of an
62. Bennett, N. J. et al. Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy. Nat. international governance agenda. Tilburg Law Rev 19, 81–89 (2014).
Sustain 2, 991–993 (2019). 95. Capistrano, R. C. G. & Charles, A. T. Indigenous rights and coastal fisheries: a
63. Hankivsky, O. et al. An intersectionality-based policy analysis framework: critical framework of livelihoods, rights and equity. Ocean Coast. Manag 69, 200–209
reflections on a methodology for advancing equity. Int. J. Equity Health 13, 119 (2012).
(2014). 96. Pomeroy, R. & Douvere, F. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial
64. Tilly, C. Durable Inequality (Univ. of California Press, 2009). planning process. Mar. Policy 32, 816–822 (2008).
65. Ingram, H., Schneider, A. L. & DeLeon, P. in Theories of the Policy Process (ed. 97. Baker-Médard, M. Gendering marine conservation: the politics of marine pro-
Sabatier, P.) (Westview Press, 2007). tected areas and fisheries access. Soc. Nat. Resour. 30, 723–737 (2017).
66. Schell, C. J. et al. The ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic 98. Daw, T. M. et al. Evaluating taboo trade-offs in ecosystems services and human
racism in urban environments. Science 369, eaay4497 (2020). well-being. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6949–6954 (2015).
67. Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the Gap in a Gen- 99. Flannery, W., Healy, N. & Luna, M. Exclusion and non-participation in Marine
eration: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Spatial Planning. Mar. Policy 88, 32–40 (2018).
https://www.who.int/social_determinants/final_report/csdh_finalreport_2008. 100. Celermajer, D. et al. Multispecies justice: theories, challenges, and a research
pdf (2008). agenda for environmental politics. Environ. Polit. 30, 119–140 (2021).
68. Douglass, K. & Cooper, J. Archaeology, environmental justice, and climate 101. Sakakibara, C. Whale Snow: Iñupiat, Climate Change, and Multispecies Resilience in
change on islands of the Caribbean and southwestern Indian Ocean. Proc. Natl. Arctic Alaska (University of Arizona Press, 2020).
Acad. Sci. USA 117, 8254–8262 (2020). 102. Harden-Davies, H. et al. Rights of nature: perspectives for global ocean stew-
69. Klein, C., McKinnon, M. C., Wright, B. T., Possingham, H. P. & Halpern, B. S. Social ardship. Mar. Policy 122, 104059 (2020).
equity and the probability of success of biodiversity conservation. Glob. Environ. 103. Cano Pecharroman, L. Rights of nature: rivers that can stand in court. Resources
Change 35, 299–306 (2015). 7, 13 (2018).
70. Nolan, C. Power and access issues in Ghana’s coastal fisheries: a political ecology 104. Richmond, L. & Kotowicz, D. Equity and access in marine protected areas: the
of a closing commodity frontier. Mar. Policy 108, 103621 (2019). history and future of ‘traditional indigenous fishing’ in the Marianas Trench
71. Fabinyi, M. Maritime disputes and seafood regimes: a broader perspective on Marine National Monument. Appl. Geogr. 59, 117–124 (2015).
fishing and the Philippines–China relationship. Globalizations 17, 146–160 105. Hardy, R. D., Milligan, R. A. & Heynen, N. Racial coastal formation: the environ-
(2020). mental injustice of colorblind adaptation planning for sea-level rise. Geoforum
72. Eder, J. F. Coastal resource management and social differences in philippine 87, 62–72 (2017).
fishing communities. Hum. Ecol. 33, 147–169 (2005). 106. Kimmerer, R. W. Searching for synergy: integrating traditional and scientific
73. Knudsen, M. Beyond clientelism: neighbourhood leaders on a Philippine Island. ecological knowledge in environmental science education. J. Environ. Stud. Sci.
Anthropol. Forum 23, 242–265 (2013). 2, 317–323 (2012).
74. Kusumawati, R. & Visser, L. E. Collaboration or contention? Decentralised marine 107. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466,
governance in Berau. Anthropol. Forum 24, 21–46 (2014). 29–29 (2010).
75. Kamat, V. R. Dispossession and disenchantment: the micropolitics of marine 108. Parathian, H. E., Frazão-Moreira, A. & Hockings, K. J. Environmental psychology
conservation in southeastern Tanzania. Mar. Policy 88, 261–268 (2018). must better integrate local cultural and sociodemographic context to inform
76. Frederickson, H. G. Social Equity and Public Administration: Origins, Developments, conservation: PARATHIAN et al. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12590 (2018).
and Applications (M.E. Sharpe, Inc, 2010). 109. Simmons, E. C. & Fielding, K. S. Psychological predictors of fishing and waste
77. Van Ness, D. W. & Strong, K. H. Restoring Justice: An Introduction to Restorative management intentions in Indonesian coastal communities. J. Environ. Psychol.
Justice (Anderson Publishing, 2015). 65, 101324 (2019).
78. Young, O. R. et al. Moving beyond panaceas in fisheries governance. Proc. Natl. 110. Jentoft, S. Small-scale fisheries within maritime spatial planning: knowledge
Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9065–9073 (2018). integration and power. J. Environ. Policy Plan 19, 266–278 (2017).
79. Chambers, C. & Carothers, C. Thirty years after privatization: a survey of Icelandic 111. Tafon, R. V. Small-scale fishers as allies or opponents? Unlocking looming ten-
small-boat fishermen. Mar. Policy 80, 69–80 (2017). sions and potential exclusions in Poland’s marine spatial planning. J. Environ.
80. Hochschild, J. L. What’s fair? American Beliefs about Distributive Justice (Harvard Policy Plan 21, 637–648 (2019).
Univ. Press, 1981). 112. Raicevich, S., Alegret, J.-L., Frangoudes, K., Giovanardi, O. & Fortibuoni, T.
81. Le Manach, F. et al. Who gets what? Developing a more equitable framework for Community-based management of the Mediterranean coastal fisheries: Histor-
EU fishing agreements. Mar. Policy 38, 257–266 (2013). ical reminiscence or the root for new fisheries governance? Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci.
82. Paehlke, R. Democracy’s Dilemma: Environment, Social Equity, and the Global 21, 86–93 (2018).
Economy (MIT Press, 2004). 113. Kerr, S., Colton, J., Johnson, K. & Wright, G. Rights and ownership in sea country:
83. Murphy, K. The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and implications of marine renewable energy for indigenous and local communities.
framework for policy analysis. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 8, 15–29 (2012). Mar. Policy 52, 108–115 (2015).
84. Kabbadj, L., Van Wynsberge, S. & Andréfouët, S. Scaling tropical island conservation 114. Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. & Walker, J. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources
planning to the regional level can lead to unbalanced ecological representation (University of Michigan Press, 1994).
and poor social equity among islands. Mar. Policy 93, 31–39 (2018). 115. Svara, J. H. & Brunet, J. R. Filling in the skeletal pillar: addressing social equity in
85. Jaeckel, A. Benefitting from the common heritage of humankind: from expec- introductory courses in public administration. J. Public Aff. Educ 10, 99–109
tation to reality. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 35, 660–681 (2020). (2004).
npj Ocean Sustainability (2022)     4 
K.M. Crosman et al.
9
116. Cooke, W. & Kothari, U. Participation: the new tyranny? (eds.). (Zed Books, thank all funders who supported this research through their contributions to the
London, 2001). CGIAR Trust Fund.
117. Fung, A. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm. Rev. 66,
66–75 (2006).
118. Crosman, K. M. Stakeholder buy-in to marine resource management under AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
conditions of complex governance (University of Washington, 2019). K.M.C. conducted the initial literature review, drafted the framework, and wrote the
119. Crosman, K. M., Singh, G. G. & Lang, S. Confronting complex accountability in
first draft of the paper. Y.O. and E.H.A. supervised the initial development of the work.
conservation with communities. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 709423 (2021). All authors workshopped the framework, contributed revisions to subsequent drafts,
120. Benson, C. Conservation NGOs in Madang, Papua New Guinea: understanding and read and approved the final version.
community and donor expectations. Soc. Nat. Resour. 25, 71–86 (2012).
121. Masood, E. The battle for the soul of biodiversity. Nature 560, 423–425 (2018).
122. Mason, M. Transparency for Whom? Information disclosure and power in global COMPETING INTERESTS
environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. 8, 8–13 (2008).
123. Davis, R. A. & Hanich, Q. Transparency in fisheries conservation and manage- The authors declare no competing interests.
ment measures. Mar. Policy 104088, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.20
20.104088 (2020).
124. Stone, D. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (W.W. Norton & Co, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2012). Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material
125. Seto, K. et al. Resource allocation in transboundary tuna fisheries: a global available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-022-00001-7.
analysis. Ambio 50, 242–259 (2021).
126. Sinan, H. & Bailey, M. Understanding barriers in Indian Ocean Tuna Com- Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Katherine M.
mission allocation negotiations on fishing opportunities. Sustainability 12, Crosman.
6665 (2020).
127. Allison, E. H. et al. The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet. https:// Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/
oceanpanel.org/blue-papers (2020). reprints
128. Kim, S., Ojo, G. U., Zaidi, R. Z. & Bryant, R. L. Bringing the other into political
ecology: reflecting on preoccupations in a research field. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
33, 34–48 (2012). in published maps and institutional affiliations.
129. Mangubhai, S., Nand, Y., Reddy, C. & Jagadish, A. Politics of Vulnerability: Impacts
of COVID-19 and Cyclone Harold on Indo-Fijians engaged in small-scale fish-
eries. Environmental Science and Policy 120, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsci.2021.03.003 (2021). Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
130. Teh, L. C. L., Teh, L. S. L., Starkhouse, B. & Sumaila, U. R. An overview of Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
socioeconomic and ecological perspectives of Fiji's inshore reef fisheries. adaptation, distribution and reproduction in anymedium or format, as long as you give
Marine Policy 33, 807–817, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.03.001 appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
(2009). Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
This research was funded by the Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus Center at from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://
EarthLab, University of Washington. The authors thank Katharine Shelledy for creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
research assistance; Heather Hill, Ines Jurcevic, and Karin Martin for workshopping an
early version of this framework; Richard Caddell and Chris McOwen for their feedback
on later versions; and Valerie Brodnikova for graphic design. E.H.A. would like to © The Author(s) 2022
npj Ocean Sustainability (2022)     4