Lecture 4 Required Reading Chapter 12
Introduction
Environmental decision-making has long involved communities gathering resources from natural environments while developing rules to protect those resources from over-exploitation. In Aotearoa (New Zealand), tangata whenua may place a rahui to protect a specific area or resource, illustrating that environmental action focused on collective and ecological wellbeing is a core aspect of civic engagement. Over time, rules and processes may change, and different sites may be protected in different ways. These developments reflect the social and political norms of their time. Yet rules and decisions about what to protect and how to protect may be hotly contested by groups with diverse values and knowledge, who will be affected by the outcomes differently. Attention to who participates and how much power they hold in decision-making varies with local and national governance institutions and legislation. Governance can change under pressure from citizen groups or through examples from elsewhere of more effective natural resource management. In democratic societies, citizens’ right to participate in environmental decision-making is widely recognized, underpinned internationally by the Aarhus Convention (2001) and by national legislation in many countries. In Aotearoa, this is reflected in the Resource Management Act (1991), the Local Government Act (2002), and other statutory measures such as conservation policy consultations. However, practice varies between nations and regions, and while citizens’ values are often considered important, indigenous environmental knowledge can be disregarded as anecdotal in favour of formal scientific knowledge. This can cause disengagement and conflict between groups or between citizens and government agencies. The ladder of public participation described by Arnstein (1969) shows that participation can range from tokenistic to full engagement in decision-making. Senecah (2004) argues that genuine participation requires access, standing and influence – the ability to participate, be respected and influence decisions. This chapter critiques participatory processes in environmental management in Aotearoa and uses a case study of local responses to Hector’s dolphin management to illustrate tensions in public participation and citizen engagement in environmental decision-making (Palliser, 2015).
The chapter focuses on Hector’s dolphins around Banks Peninsula, on the east coast of the South Island near Christchurch. The area is popular with tourists and economically valuable for tourism; locals run boat trips to view dolphins, and a kayak tour operator even calls dolphins to kayaks by slapping the water. People recall dolphins in the harbour back to 1947. The conservation status of Hector’s dolphins is “nationally vulnerable” (Department of Conservation, n.d.), and a marine mammal sanctuary was designated in 1988 to protect dolphins from fishing and exploratory acoustic devices used in mineral resource exploration. Further rules to protect dolphins were established in 2008 through a collaboration between the Department of Conservation (DOC) and the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish). The resulting strategy was the Hector’s and Maui Dolphin Threat Management Plan (Draft) (the Dolphin Plan) (MFish & DOC, 2007). In 2012, the Maui dolphin elements were revised, and at the time of writing the plans for both Hector’s and Maui dolphins were being revised (DOC, 2019). This chapter, therefore, narrates the story of Hector’s dolphin management on Banks Peninsula from the early 1980s to the end of the initial Dolphin Plan in late 2008, highlighting conflict and reluctant compliance that has persisted for over 30 years. The account uses post-normal science (PNS) as a lens to examine “wicked problems” where issues are complex, knowledge is uncertain, and decisions must be made urgently. PNS emphasizes considering all available knowledge, recognizing uncertainties and information gaps, and making deliberated decisions with a peer group of stakeholders (Jasanoff, 2017; Gluckman, 2014a).
Hector's dolphin protection on Banks Peninsula
In the early 1980s, two Otago University scientists studied Hector’s dolphins in Aotearoa’s coastal waters for PhDs. At that time Maui dolphins had not yet been designated a separate species from Hector’s dolphins. The researchers conducted boat surveys, spoke with fishers, and examined washed-up dolphin carcasses for fishing-net damage. Their findings indicated that fishing—especially set-net (gill-net) fishing—was a major threat to Hector’s dolphins and could lead to extinction if protective measures were not implemented (Dawson & Slooten, 1988; 1993). Population estimates from those surveys ranged from 3,000 to 4,000 dolphins, with one of the largest populations near Banks Peninsula (Parkin, 1996). The dolphins tend to inhabit inshore waters within ~4 nautical miles (nm), moving offshore in winter (Dawson & Slooten, 1988).
The DOC, newly established at the time, took the research seriously and designated a Marine Mammal Sanctuary around Banks Peninsula in 1988. This followed a six-week public consultation during which people could submit proposals for sanctuary management; strong support for anti-fishing rules inside the sanctuary emerged, with 68% of submissions backing such measures (Hughey, 2000). As a result, set-net fishing was banned up to 4 nm offshore, with exceptions for small recreational set-nets that could be set during the day in winter, provided fishers remained with them (Dawson & Slooten, 1993). While the national backdrop supported these actions, many local residents were angry about the sanctuary and its designation. Banks Peninsula families with several generations of local residence often mistrusted government agencies and scientists, a sentiment potentially exacerbated by the sanctuary designation. Twenty years later, locals still spoke bitterly about how their knowledge of dolphins had been disregarded in favor of data from a few PhD students counting dolphins from a dinghy. A DOC representative recalled that some fishers grew so angry they approached violence. One fisher argued that researchers had relied on data from a few years in the early 1980s during a time when many dolphins were killed as quotas were being allocated under the new Quota Management System; after quotas were allocated in 1986, fishing practices largely returned to normal (Lock & Leslie, 2007; Palliser, 2015).
By 2008, Hector’s dolphin protection again hit the headlines. A large body of research on the dolphins’ plight had accumulated, including a computer model showing that a population of almost 30,000 in the 1970s had been reduced to 7,873 by fishing impacts (Slooten, 2007). Driven by this research and pressure from national and international conservation organizations, DOC and MFish launched the Hector’s and Maui Dolphin Threat Management Plan in 2007. After a year of consultation, new rules were announced by the Minister of Fisheries in 2008. These rules prohibited set-netting from most of the South Island's coastal waters inshore of 4 nm and banned trawling inshore of 2 nm. The Dolphin Plan also extended the Marine Mammal Sanctuary boundaries to 12 nm offshore and northwards around Banks Peninsula to the Waipara River, though the 4–12 nm zone remained subject to rules restricting acoustic devices. Recreational set-netting was effectively curtailed in Akaroa Harbour. Small, light nets used to catch flounder remained permissible in certain areas during winter, provided the fishers stayed with them.
The Dolphin Plan’s consultation process engaged citizens by holding meetings around the country, including Wellington where stakeholders discussed issues in smaller groups and more depth (Palliser, 2015). A discussion document released in April 2007 invited input from all interested parties, and the August 2007 draft Dolphin Plan proposed three potential management options, ranging from no change to substantial fishing bans for coastal areas. The documentation also included two research papers: a Dolphin Plan social impact study by Penny et al. (2007), which highlighted substantial financial losses to commercial and recreational fishers under stricter management options, and a risk analysis of fishing impacts on dolphins conducted by NIWA and the NZ Seafoods Industry Council (Davis et al., 2008). The final advice paper synthesized these inputs, guiding the Minister’s June 2008 decisions (Anderton, 2008).
The new rules provoked strong local reactions. Recreational set-netting had been a long-standing local practice allowing certain fisheries, and some species were difficult to catch by line or pot. A retired commercial fisher lamented, “Now that they’ve taken the set net away, they’ve taken away a way of life… we spent hours and we were really struggling to catch fish.” Locals argued that, given the Marine Mammal Sanctuary designation since 1988, they had followed safe netting practices—netting only during the day in winter and staying with nets—and claimed that dolphin captures were not occurring. Dolphin-watching operators, whose livelihoods depended on the dolphins, likewise perceived fewer incidents of dolphin bycatch and reported that dolphins appeared abundant around the harbour, though these anecdotes were contested by researchers. Some locals believed the new rules did not reflect actual risk or dolphin behavior, while only a minority supported the precautionary approach.
Knowledge to inform decision-making
Since Hector’s dolphins were first studied in the 1980s, substantial research has accumulated, but uncertainties persist. In natural resource management, uncertainties and data gaps are common. The main research aims are estimating abundance to determine population size and trends, and conducting risk assessments to determine whether human activities, such as fishing, threaten extinction. Tyre and Michaels (2011) note that cetacean abundance estimates inherently carry high uncertainties, and van der Sluijs et al. (2008) illustrate similar uncertainties in risk assessments. The Davis et al. (2008) risk analysis accompanying the Dolphin Plan used a computer-model approach to project Hector’s dolphin populations from the 1970s to 2050 under different management options, producing results similar to Slooten (2007). However, unlike Slooten (2007), Davis et al. (2008) were explicit about their modeling assumptions, data limitations, and uncertainties, leading some Dolphin Plan working party members to deem the research valueless for informing decisions (Palliser & Dodson, 2017). The abundance estimates for Hector’s dolphins have evolved: Dawson & Slooten (1988) estimated 3,000–4,000; Slooten (2007) revised to 7,873; MacKenzie & Clements (2016) provide a more recent South Island-specific estimate of 11,923–18,492. Different methodological approaches likely produced different estimates, so an upward trend cannot be assumed from these numbers alone (Palliser & Dodson, 2017).
In public decision-making, science is often expected to inform decisions because it is considered more reliable than anecdotal knowledge. Yet the best possible science in natural environments is frequently highly uncertain and not easily replicable, particularly in marine contexts (Tyre & Michaels, 2011). Non-experts may struggle to interpret uncertainties, and opportunities for direct dialogue between citizens and scientists are scarce, which can foster mistrust in science, scientists, and government (Jasanoff, 2017). In Banks Peninsula, some fishers viewed Slooten’s 2007 paper with mistrust, criticizing the limited data used to extrapolate population estimates back 30 years. In contrast, a 2012 paper by Gormley et al. indicated a 6% population increase around Banks Peninsula between 1988 and 2006, a finding not incorporated into the Dolphin Plan for some time. This discrepancy illustrates how local knowledge and later scientific findings can diverge and how timely communication of research uncertainties matters.
Post-normal science (PNS) acknowledges knowledge uncertainty and the value of incorporating local and indigenous knowledge to achieve a more complete understanding. PNS emphasizes transparency about uncertainties and data gaps and advocates deliberation among a peer group of stakeholders who are affected by decisions (Konig, Borzen & Emmeche, 2017; Jasanoff, 2017). The idea is that including diverse perspectives helps illuminate the complexity of wicked problems and supports more robust decision-making. As researchers stress, though, PNS is not a panacea: it requires careful design to prevent deliberations from devolving into mere debates about which perspective is “true” (van der Sluijs, 2008; Spangenberg, 2011). The aim is to build trust through transparent handling of uncertainties and to enable informed dialogue among scientists, decision-makers, and citizens. This reflects a broader shift toward deliberative approaches in environmental communication, often framed as the “deliberative turn” (Lindenfeld et al., 2012; Phillips, 2011).
Participatory processes in Hector's dolphin management
The Marine Mammal Sanctuary designation began in March 1988, with meetings held around Banks Peninsula and local Catholic churches, followed by submissions within a six-week window (Hughey, 2000). The sanctuary was formally designated in December 1988 (Parkin, 1996). A local DOC representative criticized the process as inadequate, noting insufficient consultation and significant resentment. Parkin (1996) and Hughey (2000) argued that the process lacked transparency about uncertainties surrounding the dolphin data, did not allow sufficient time for submissions, and was biased toward national and international conservation voices, leaving local fishers feeling unheard and victimized. They warned that conservation initiatives risked alienating local stakeholders if participation processes were perceived as unfair, which could undermine conservation goals. A DOC representative quoted during that period highlighted that some rural residents would not do business with DOC because of the sanctuary (Parkin, 1996).
The Dolphin Plan participatory process occurred over a longer period, beginning in early 2007 and concluding with decisions in June 2008. Twice as much time was allowed for submissions compared with the sanctuary process, and the Dolphin Plan included more opportunities for deliberation, including meetings in Wellington in addition to the Banks Peninsula gatherings. Yet some participants, including a Banks Peninsula recreational fisherman, felt local knowledge was disregarded and that local proposals for dolphin protection were ignored. A local fisherman described the Dolphin Plan process as “the biggest sham and the most manipulative thing that I’ve ever been involved with.” Commercial fishers also expressed disappointment that measures they had implemented to reduce dolphin bycatch—such as pingers on nets—were not adequately considered in the documentation or final decisions (Palliser, 2015).
Despite these criticisms, the Dolphin Plan documentation improved transparency about uncertainties. The Davis et al. (2008) study was translated into accessible language to help non-experts understand the high degree of uncertainty and data scarcity. From a post-normal science perspective, comparisons across the two processes suggest improvements in transparency about uncertainties but persistent gaps in valuing local or indigenous knowledge and experiences for management options. The Dolphin Plan included more comprehensive public participation than the sanctuary process; however, some participants still found meetings tokenistic, flawed, or manipulative. The repeated alienation of Banks Peninsula locals, combined with ongoing conflict between fishers and conservationists, signaled that participation alone does not resolve contested governance outcomes.
Jentoft (2007) argues that communities affected by the designation and operation of marine protected areas should be closely involved to avoid resistance to rules and noncompliance. In the Dolphin Plan case, locals were not fully engaged in drafting rules such as pingers for commercial fishers or safe practices for recreational nets, and their suggestions often did not shape policy. The overall picture is one of evolving participatory practices: greater transparency about uncertainties and more deliberate consultation, but continued distrust and conflict over knowledge validity and governance decisions (Palliser & Dodson, 2017, 2019).
Deliberative approaches, trust, and the politics of knowledge
Deliberative processes aim to reduce conflict and build trust by enabling stakeholders to discuss and integrate different knowledge sources, ideas, and suggestions in search of a shared way forward. In the United States, collaborative learning has been used for over 20 years to facilitate natural resource management through deliberative engagement, recognizing ecosystem complexity, uncertainty, and diverse perspectives. However, deliberative governance is not a universal remedy: some scholars contend that current science and governance systems must change to maximize the benefits of deliberative processes (Spangenberg, 2011; van der Sluijs, 2008). In deliberative forums, citizens may end up debating which perspective is “true” rather than comprehensively considering all perspectives; some participants may be swayed by claims supported by “science” (even if contested) or may oppose scientific information on principle. As a result, deliberation must be carefully designed to minimize impediments such as ideological bias, strategic use of science by interest groups, or attempts to silence dissent (Sprain & Reinig, 2018; Fischer, 2006).
In the Aotearoa context, public participation has remained heavily oriented toward formal submissions and hearings, which Senecah (2004) argues do not fully engage citizens or make them feel heard, potentially fueling conflict. Deliberative forms of participation—such as marae-based processes or structured deliberations bridging scientists, decision-makers, and citizens—have begun to appear but are not yet common across all governance arenas (Goven et al., 2012). Some argue these deliberative formats should be expanded to harness the energy and knowledge of tangata whenua, fishers, and conservation groups to address high-urgency, complex environmental problems (Goven et al., 2014a; Palliser, 2015).
Post-normal science emphasizes that decisions under uncertainty require inclusive deliberation among all affected stakeholders, including local and indigenous knowledge holders. The Dolphin Plan represents a move toward transparency about uncertainties and incorporating multiple knowledge sources, but the processes also illustrate ongoing tensions between scientific authority and local legitimacy. The literature proposes that combining deliberative forums with post-normal science principles can help bridge gaps between science and citizen experience, potentially leading to more legitimate and robust outcomes when properly designed and facilitated (Daniels & Walker, 2012; Ulrich & Reynolds, 2010; Reed, 2008).
Implications for policy, ethics, and practice
Ethically, the Hector’s dolphin case underscores the importance of fairness, respect, and trust in governance. When local knowledge is dismissed or when consultation processes are perceived as superficial or biased, communities may feel disempowered, leading to resistance and noncompliance that undermine conservation aims. The Dolphin Plan’s emphasis on transparency about data gaps and uncertainties helps address some of these concerns, but it does not automatically resolve the rift between conservation priorities and local livelihoods. Practically, the experience suggests that:
Deliberative, inclusive, and well-facilitated processes are essential to align diverse values and knowledge systems.
Local and indigenous knowledge should be treated as legitimate inputs to management discussions rather than anecdotes; their integration requires careful design to avoid tokenism.
Scientists and decision-makers should communicate uncertainties clearly and accessibly to build trust and enable informed public deliberation.
Timely inclusion of emerging evidence (including local observational data) can help update management choices and reduce perception of “one-off” or biased science.
Protective measures should consider both ecological effectiveness and socio-economic impacts to minimize loss of livelihoods and maintain broad-based support for conservation objectives.
The Hector’s dolphin case illustrates how environmental governance remains a contest of values, knowledge, and power. While public participation and PNS-informed approaches have improved transparency and inclusivity over time, entrenched conflict persists in Banks Peninsula. The ongoing challenge is to design governance processes that genuinely enable deliberation, respect local knowledge and experience, and adapt in response to new scientific findings, all while maintaining protections for Hector’s dolphins and the local communities that depend on the coastal environment.
Timeline of key events and concepts (selected)
1988: Marine Mammal Sanctuary designated around Banks Peninsula after six-week consultation; set-net fishing banned up to 4 nm offshore, with exceptions for small recreational nets in winter, provided fishers stay with nets. The sanctuary designation faced significant local resistance (Hughey, 2000; Parkin, 1996).
Early 1980s: Research identifies set-net fishing as a major threat to Hector’s dolphins; DOC acts on findings by establishing the sanctuary and later protections.
1988–1990s: Sanctuary rules and local reactions persist; some locals recall that data were derived from a small number of studies, leading to mistrust of how decisions were made.
2007: Draft Hector’s and Maui Dolphin Threat Management Plan (DTMP) released; three management options proposed; social impact and risk assessment papers published (Penny et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2008).
2008: Dolphin Plan decisions announced; recreational set-netting restrictions extended and sanctuary boundaries expanded to 12 nm offshore; new acoustic-device rules implemented 4–12 nm; local reactions vary.
2012–2019: Maui dolphin elements revised; ongoing Dolphin Plan reviews reflect evolving knowledge and governance practices (DOC, 2019).
Throughout: Population estimates evolve from N{1988} ightarrow N{2007}
ightarrow N_{2016} estimates: 3{,}000-4{,}000 (Dawson & Slooten, 1988); 7{,}873 (Slooten, 2007); 11{,}923-18{,}492 (MacKenzie & Clements, 2016). The 1970s–2000s computer-model projections for planning show declines from nearly 3.0 imes 10^4 to 7.873 imes 10^3 under various scenarios (Slooten, 2007).Key theoretical references underpinning the analysis include Arnstein (1969) ladder of participation, Senecah (2004) on access/standing/influence, Jentoft (2007) on governability, and post-normal science sources (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 2003; Gluckman, 2014a; Jasanoff, 2017).
References (selected)
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
Davies et al., 2008. Risk analysis of Hector’s dolphin and Maui dolphin bycatch using a temporal-spatial age-structured model. NIWA.
Davis, N. M., et al. (2008). Risk analysis of Hector’s dolphin and Maui’s dolphin subpopulations; NIWA.
Slooten, E. (2007). Conservation management in the face of uncertainty: Four options for managing Hector’s dolphin bycatch. Endangered Species Research, 3(2), 169-179.
Gluckman, P. (2014). Post-normal science and policy. 2014. Various sources.
Palliser, A. (2015). Building adaptive capacity for natural resources in Akaroa coastal environment. PhD dissertation, University of Otago.
Jasanoff, S. (2017). Back from the brink: Truth and trust in the public sphere. Issues in Science and Technology.
Daniels, S. E., & Walker, G. B. (2012). Lessons from the trenches: Twenty years of using systems thinking in natural resource conflict situations. Systemic Practice and Action Research.
Spangenberg, J. H. (2011). Sustainability science: A review, an analysis and empirical lessons. Environmental Conservation.
van der Sluijs, J. (2008). Post-normal science and STS. Changing relationships between science and society. Conference materials.
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431.
Sprain, L., & Reinig, L. (2018). Citizens speaking as experts: Expertise discourse in deliberative forums. Environmental Communication, 12(3), 357-369.
Parkin, S. M. (1996). Banks Peninsula marine mammal sanctuary: A conservation conflict (unpublished master’s thesis). Lincoln University.
Hughey, K. F. D. (2000). An evaluation of a management saga: The Banks Peninsula marine mammal sanctuary, New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management, 58(3), 179-197.
Gormley, A., et al. (2012). Population trends of Hector’s dolphins around Banks Peninsula. (Journal details as cited in chapter).
MacKenzie, D., & Clements, D. (2016). Abundance and distribution of West Coast Society Hector’s dolphin. NZ Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report 168.
Ministry for Primary Industries; Ministry of Fisheries & Department of Conservation. (2001). Hectors and Maui Dolphin Draft Threat Management Plan.
Davis, L., et al. (2018). Environmental communication and science communication: Conversations, connections and collaborations. Environmental Communication, 12(4), 431-437.
Notes: The discussion above synthesizes material from Palliser (2015) and related sources to provide a comprehensive, self-contained overview of Hector’s dolphin management, participatory processes, post-normal science framing, and deliberative governance in Aotearoa.