ABSTRACT

Why have mangroves and their ecosystems been so hotly contested over the last quarter century in Aotearoa New Zealand’s northern waters? Central to ‘mangrove mania’ are multiple, competing and often antagonistic perceptions of the perceived risks posed by mangrove presence, their removal and efforts to restore them. Not surprisingly this has led to a chaotic mangrove knowledge space, with significant gaps in knowledge required to understand risks associated with mangrove management. In a socio-ecological investigation of risk questions relating to the mangrove debate, we reveal how localised contestations of mangroves have been ‘arbitrated’ – in different directions. This state of affairs has resulted from several critical threads: from many sources, pressures and intentions, but all involving the often ill-specified lens of public opinion, science practice, environmental management procedures, Māori knowledge, community views, land and inshore development, and consenting processes. We systematically examine the trajectory of these critical threads and their interactions, underlying the mangrove debate and the resulting variability in how risks are portrayed. Our evidence suggests that perceived risk of mangrove expansion, and of mangrove removal impacts, is contested and linked to different desired and imagined futures.

摘要

为什么在过去的四分之一世纪里，新西兰北部水域的红树林及其生态系统受到如此激烈的争夺？“红树林狂热”的核心是对红树林存在所带来的感知风险、它们的移除和恢复它们的努力的多重、相互竞争且通常是对立的看法。毫不奇怪，这导致了一个混乱的红树林知识空间，在了解与红树林管理相关的风险所需的知识方面存在巨大差距。在对与红树林辩论有关的风险问题的社会生态调查中，我们揭示了红树林的局部争议是如何被“仲裁”的——在不同的方向上。这种事态是由几个关键线索造成的：来自许多来源、压力和意图，但都涉及通常不明确的舆论视角，科学实践、环境管理程序、毛利知识、社区观点、土地和近海开发以及同意程序。我们系统地研究了这些关键线索的轨迹及其相互作用，这些是红树林辩论的基础，以及由此产生的风险描述方式的可变性。我们的证据表明，红树林扩张的感知风险和红树林移除影响是有争议的，并且与不同的期望和想象的未来有关。