Search for: All records

Abstract Conflict in the marine environment is of increasing relevance as blue growth boundaries are pushed and resource access and use are in dispute. Social science disciplines have a long history and a wide range of approaches for studying conflict. However, understanding the approaches used to study marine conflict is challenging since the literature is large, broad, difficult to navigate, and there is little connection between conflict themes and the associated methods used to analyze these conflicts. In the present study, we take a first step to address this by systematically reviewing 109 peer-reviewed articles that employ empirical social science methods to study marine conflict. We find that studies on marine conflicts have centered on disputed space, mainly at local scale, and natural resources, such as fish. The main parties at the center of the conflicts are small-scale fisheries and public authorities, although with a growing presence of blue growth sectors. Most studies employed qualitative approaches to study marine conflicts. Current gaps in the understanding of marine conflict include gaps in understanding relational interactions and historical causal events. The need for social science research into marine conflict and the application of multiple social science methods is ongoing as different constellations of conflict actors emerge and as disputed ocean spaces expand beyond EEZs, to include polar regions, and the sea floor. 

Abstract A growing number of global ocean conflict studies over the last decade have set out to advance sustainability in the Anthropocene. Many of these research projects use multiple case studies to extract lessons for wider contexts. The methods used by these studies, and the extent to which their results have validity beyond the individual case study, often remain unclear. This paper explores the challenges in performing cross-case analysis within what we denote as case-based globally focussed sustainability projects (CB-GSPs) and indicates solutions by combining information from semi-structured interviews with leading scientists from eight CB-GSPs. We identify six distinct challenges that are common across these studies with regard to generating actionable knowledge through cross-case analysis. Based on these findings, we propose a set of best practice recommendations for scientists, project partners, and funders to co-produce actionable knowledge for global projects on ocean conflict.