A systematic scoping review of social sciences and humanities to contribute to ecosystem-based management

Abstract

Ecosystem-based management is key to achieving sustainable ocean use. To realize this potential, marine ecosystem-based management requires greater involvement of the social sciences and humanities, especially to adopt a more holistic approach and incorporate human–nature interactions. An understanding of the state of marine social science and humanities research and its potential to provide advice for management can inform and further its use. To contribute to a future where marine ecosystem-based management fully utilizes marine social science and humanities research, this analysis systematically scoped and reviewed 176 peer-reviewed social science and humanities papers about marine systems in Atlantic Canada published between 2000 and 2021. The analysis used ecological, economic, social/cultural, and governance objectives defined in an ecosystem-based management framework to structure the analysis. The analysis asked three questions: (i) What is the scope of the social science and humanities literature about aquatic systems in Atlantic Canada? (ii) How does that literature relate to objectives in ecosystem-based management? (iii) To what extent is that literature framed for practical integration of advice into decision making? Results indicate a comprehensive body of research, with potential to inform ecosystem-based management but with limited framing for practical integration. This result highlights missed opportunities for the research to be ready for use in ecosystem-based management. The research offers a framework, method, and strategies to understand and improve the scope and practical use of social science and humanities to inform marine ecosystem-based management in Atlantic Canada and globally.

Introduction

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is an interdisciplinary, integrated approach to management that considers the entire ecosystem, including human-nature interactions (Long et al. 2015). EBM recognizes the interconnected nature of social-ecological systems, as well as considers human activities and environmental stewardship in a multiple use context (Smith et al. 2017). Despite the importance of a broad spectrum of sustainability objectives for EBM globally, including ecological, social, economic, and institutional objectives (Stephenson et al. 2018, 2019), there has been limited practical engagement with the social sciences and humanities (SSH). Research is just beginning to comprehensively map the potential contributions from SSH research about aquatic systems to inform EBM (Christie 2011, Stephenson et al. 2019, Foley et al. 2020, Tam et al. 2024, Haugen et al. 2024a), but there are challenges (O’Higgins et al. 2020, Haugen et al. 2024b). To advance EBM more fully, then, scholars and practitioners should direct their attention on how to incorporate SSH, among other types of knowledge inputs (Valdés-Pizzini et al. 2012, Stephenson et al. 2021), into management and governance to facilitate planning, learning, and integrative decision-making (Bennett et al. 2017, 2022).

Published SSH research provides the opportunity to learn about its scope, applicability, and relevance for EBM. To guide and inform the development of this opportunity, this paper presents a systematic scoping review of SSH research focused on the four provinces of Atlantic Canada: Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, during 2000–2021. This paper will investigate the scope of SSH research on marine systems in Atlantic Canada as well as explore the challenges and opportunities for greater integration and use of the research to inform EBM in the region and beyond.

Canada’s oceans and coastal systems are managed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), although other Federal departments, such as Environment and Climate Change Canada and Transport Canada have roles too. Provincial governments have management responsibility for aquaculture through Memoranda of Understanding with DFO, and for most freshwater systems, while DFO leads the management of species-at-risk in these systems. Provincial governments also manage seafood processing within provincial boundaries. DFO has regulatory and policy obligations encouraging consideration of non-ecological objectives for decision-making in Canada’s Fisheries Act (Stephenson et al. 2019), and to more comprehensively meet DFO’s long-standing mandate for an ecosystem approach such as in Canada's Oceans Act 1996. The emphasis on non-ecological objectives has contributed to the need within DFO to incorporate economic, social/cultural, and governance aspects of aquatic system change into decision-making in addition to ecological dimensions (Rudd et al. 2018, Bundy et al. 2021).

EBM incorporates ecological, economic, social/cultural, and governance objectives to achieve sustainable resource use at appropriate temporal and spatial scales (Long et al. 2015). Globally, progress is being made on EBM (Dickey-Collas et al. 2022, Haugen et al. 2024a, 2024b). One example is the DFO Maritimes Region Ecosystem-Based Management Framework (EBM Framework), which includes ecological, economic, social/cultural, and governance objectives (Daly et al. 2020, Bundy et al. 2021), highlighting opportunity for using the example as an illustration.

The EBM Framework is conceived as ‘a key tool that DFO can use to support decision-making within and across sectors by providing a broad range of indicators and objectives beyond the current considerations (largely ecological and economic)’ (Daly et al. 2020: 1). A suite of objectives for the EBM Framework have been co-developed, assessed and tested among DFO staff and social scientists (Bundy et al. 2021, Bundy et al. in prep). As the EBM Framework continues to be developed, discussions are ongoing about the development of indicators and scope of implementation in diverse aquatic system contexts. Both require SSH research and information to inform how to operationalize the EBM Framework to support interdisciplinary advice in DFO decision-making.

Given this opportunity, the authors conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the challenges and opportunities for SSH research to inform EBM, using the EBM Framework to structure the analysis. Conventional marine system management and governance such as single species fisheries management or species at risk management were also included in the scope of the investigation. As with EBM, the analysis was conducted at an appropriate spatial scale—Atlantic Canada. However, the relevance and applicability of the results are broad and explored in the discussion.

This paper has three research questions:

• What is the scope of the SSH literature about marine systems in Atlantic Canada?

• How does that literature relate to objectives in EBM?

• To what extent is that literature framed for practical integration of advice into decision making?

Methods

This systematic scoping review of SSH peer-reviewed papers focused on marine systems in three of the four DFO regions located in Atlantic Canada: Maritimes, Gulf, and Newfoundland and Labrador regions from 2000 to 2021. The time period, 2000–2021, was selected to sufficiently observe patterns in the depth and breadth of SSH research and its potential relevance to current management issues, while maintaining manageability. A cross-provincial Atlantic focus was chosen because SSH research sometimes includes multiple provinces and there are some common issues across the Atlantic region.

The research uses a systematic scoping review approach. A systematic review is a rigorous method to assess a body of literature and its contributions in a transparent and replicable way (Petticrew and Roberts 2006). As demonstrated in environmental and environmental management contexts (e.g. Plummer et al. 2012, Andrews et al. 2020), systematic reviews often focus on a high-level analysis of the literature. A scoping review aims to identify and assess of new, emergent or under-defined body of literature or concepts (Levac et al. 2010). Taken together, systematic scoping reviews are used to establish pre-conditions for future research, drawing on the aims of the scoping review with the rigor of systematic review techniques. Systematic scoping review outcomes help recognize and clarify the literature, examine how research is conducted and positioned, and highlight knowledge and practice gaps (Munn et al. 2018). Systematic scoping reviews set a strong basis for future systematic, synthetic, and case-based studies and examples, as well as replication, such as in other geographical or practice contexts (Levac et al. 2010, Munn et al. 2018). This systematic scoping review provides a high-level view of the SSH literature that has been ‘scoped’ with a special focus related to EBM and practical contexts in which EBM is advanced, establishing a basis from which future research can take place.

Following question formulation, the review involved searching, screening, analysis, and data cleaning activities, reviewed below (see Supplementary Material 1 for a comprehensive description of the activities). The research team included DFO natural and social scientists, an environmental non-governmental organization (ENGO) scientist and social scientists from academia. Team members brought different perspectives and viewpoints from disciplinary and institutional practices, negotiating disagreements to consensus. The interactions strengthened the comprehensiveness and rigour of the methodology through all phases (see Supplementary Material 1). The review was informed by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) (Moher et al. 2009) and PRISMA 2020 Checklist, although the review was not registered. Since it was outside of the scope, risk of bias within, nor certainty/confidence of evidence in, each paper was not assessed.

The search protocol

A search protocol was developed and applied to abstracts and titles in Scopus and Web of Science databases. The search string is as follows:

• Marine OR Fisher* OR Coastal OR Ocean

  AND

• Social OR Cultural OR Governance OR Institutional OR Economic OR Gender OR ‘Human dimensions’ OR Indigenous OR Management OR Ecological OR Aboriginal OR ‘First Nations’ OR Netukulimk

  AND

• ‘Atlantic Canada’ OR Newfoundland OR ‘Newfoundland and Labrador’ OR ‘Nova Scotia’ OR ‘Prince Edward Island’ OR ‘New Brunswick’ OR ‘Nova Scotian’ OR ‘Atlantic Canadian’ OR ‘Canadian Maritime’ OR ‘Canada’s Maritime’ OR Mi’kmaw.

The search string was developed to capture SSH peer-reviewed papers related to marine systems in the provinces of Atlantic Canada. The combination of major terms like ‘marine’ AND ‘social’ allowed for broad comprehensiveness and solid footing from which the sample was scoped. Other terms including ‘Indigenous,’ ‘First Nations’ and ‘Aboriginal’ refer to Indigenous Peoples in Canadian policy and legislation and are relevant to the region. The term ‘Mi'kmaw’ refers to the Atlantic Canada First Nation and ‘Netukulimk’ is an important Mi’kmaw concept that ‘encompasses Mi’kmaq sovereign law ways and guides individual and collective beliefs and behaviours in resource protection, procurement, and management to ensure and honour sustainability and prosperity for the ancestor, present and future generations’ (Prosper et al. 2011). Although these terms do not capture all Indigenous-related terminology or Indigenous Peoples in the region, they were chosen as widely representative of the region.

The search string resulted in 1993 records, including 1147 from Scopus and 846 from Web of Science. Search results were reviewed by the reviewer team (see Fig. 1). Since the search was applied to peer-reviewed papers in the context of a scoping review approach, SSH communicated in chapters and books were not retrieved and may limit scope and implications of the findings, such as in the context of the humanities, as described later in the discussion.

The analysis involved coding the records in the final sample following a classification guide, and then making collaborative classification decisions based on the codes (Table 1; see Supplementary Material 1 for the full classification guide).

The three research questions

For Research Question 1, ‘What is the scope of the SSH literature about marine systems in Atlantic Canada?’ the authors conducted coding to evaluate the scope of the research, applying the classification guide (e.g. Publication year, peer-reviewed journal, keywords). Some classifications in Research Question 1 involved multiple steps. For example, for both ‘research subject’ and ‘research focus’ (see Supplementary Material for definitions), the authors first coded and classified major elements of each article, including the abstract, research objectives, and research conclusions.

Coding for Research Question 2, ‘How does that literature relate to objectives in EBM?,’ involved reviewing and evaluating the research findings in empirical articles. It also involved assessing the substantive content of critical analysis and theoretical articles in relation to the EBM Framework Pillars and main objectives (Table 2). The main objectives of the Maritimes EBM Framework were used to structure this analysis. Based on the coding, some articles were classified as being relevant for multiple pillars and objectives.

Coding for Research Question 3 ‘To what extent is that literature framed for practical integration of advice into decision making?’ also involved reviewing and evaluating the research findings and discussions/conclusions in empirical articles as well as the substantive content of critical analysis and theoretical articles. One set of classifications focused on the relevance of the article's findings and implications for different governmental sectors (Table 3), and whether they were oriented more strategically (‘big picture thinking’ about the direction of management over the long term) or tactically (year to year decision-making such as setting allowable catch) (see Gavaris 2009; Benson and Stephenson 2018). The government sectors used in the evaluation reflect the situation in Atlantic Canada where the research is located. They could have been labelled differently to be more generic, but since the decision-making body is not the focus of the analysis, but simply a means to structure it, this approach provides results useful to both Atlantic Canada and beyond.

Another set of classifications focused on the presence or absence of recommendations for management and governance, the type of recommendation, if present, and whether insights for integrating those recommendations were included (e.g. principles, actions, strategies, or pathways for using the recommendation). Types of recommendations were classified as governance (i.e. broader, multi-actor processes and structures shaping policy and decision-making), regulations (i.e. rules based in legislation), policy (i.e. rules intended to implement legislation and regulations in organizations), and decision-making (i.e. processes for implementing policy through management). Classifying the presence of practical recommendations involved determining whether there was attention to how an article’s findings or substantive content could be used in management or governance, beyond advancing academic science.

Data cleaning occurred throughout the process. Some article aspects did not fit classification, sometimes because of disciplinary differences in publication practices (e.g. no abstract; research objectives) or because classifications did not fit substantive content (e.g. EBM Framework pillars or objectives did not apply). These were addressed through classifications like ‘N/A’ or ‘unclear,’ the latter of which implies that reviewers all agreed the classification did not fit the article aspect.

Results

The final sample consisted of 176 SSH peer-reviewed papers. Together they highlight the scope of the SSH research (RQ1), its relevance to the EBM Framework (RQ2) and the orientation of the research for practical integration in EBM and existing aquatic system management and governance (RQ3).

Research Question 1: What is the scope of the social science and humanities literature about marine systems in Atlantic Canada?

The papers were published in 76 journals, most frequently in Marine Policy (n = 40), Ocean and Coastal Management (n = 13), Ecology and Society (n = 11), and Human Ecology (n = 8). The remaining 73 journals published four or less papers each. The number of papers published per year averaged 5.6 during the first 14 years, then more than doubled to 12.6 per year over the last 8 years (Fig. 2).

Social scientists led 59% of papers, natural scientists led 21%, policy or governance researchers led 16%, about 2% were led by an author who identified their work in a design field (e.g. Architecture or planning), and one author (<1%) identified their discipline as Indigenous studies. The top five primary author disciplines were anthropology (n = 32), human geography (n = 19), marine biology (n = 13), environmental economics (n = 10), and sociology (n = 10). No humanities disciplines were recorded.

A Word Cloud of the 558 keywords from each paper (Fig. 3) demonstrates that the six most common keywords were fisheries (n = 22), Canada (n = 17), Newfoundland (n = 14), fisheries management (n = 13), governance (n = 11), and local ecological knowledge (n = 11). The species most mentioned were lobster and American lobster (n = 9), cod, Atlantic cod, and northern Gulf cod (n = 7), salmon and Atlantic salmon (n = 6), snow crab (n = 4), and shrimp and Northern shrimp (n = 3). Most keywords were referenced only once (n = 454) with 104 referenced more frequently.

The scale of the SSH research varied from local to international with almost half of the research focused at the provincial scale, 26% and 22% focused at the local and interprovincial scale, respectively, and 11% of the papers were international or comparative. The distribution of papers across the provinces was uneven with the highest number, 73, focused on marine systems in Newfoundland and Labrador, which mostly accounts for the increase in papers noted above (Fig. 2). A further 43 papers were focused on Nova Scotia, while 38 had a more general focus on Atlantic Canadian marine systems (Fig. 4a). Across this geographical focus, most of the papers (n = 124) were focused on coastal ecosystems, 21 on coastal and offshore, 11 on the offshore, and 15 were unspecified (Fig. 4a).

The main subject of most papers was fisheries (n = 105), followed by ocean spaces (n = 28), coastal zones (n = 16), markets (n = 14), and aquaculture (n = 12) (Fig. 4b). All 11 main research foci (Fig. 4b; Supplementary Table 3) were identified in the fisheries papers, and eight were identified in the Aquaculture and Coastal Zone papers. Papers concerned with Ocean Spaces and Markers were more focused on Policy and Governance, then Management (Ocean Spaces) and Political economy (Markets). Overall, policy and governance (n = 53) and management (n = 25) research foci were the most numerous and the most common across all main subject areas. Work and labour, gender, and innovation were the research foci least addressed and, in the case of work and labour, only addressed in papers concerned with Fisheries (Fig. 4b).

The majority of papers used a qualitative research approach (n = 119), while 29 used mixed methods, and 28 used a quantitative approach. Of the 150 papers that included data, 70 collected primary data, 49 used secondary data, and 31 did both. Therefore, about 85% of the papers included some data type, whereas the remaining papers were literature based (n = 24) or included some other alternative (e.g. experiential). Of the papers using data, the majority of papers used at least one data collection source, such as interviews (n = 57), public data/government data/industry data (n = 45), surveys (n = 21), other (n = 13; e.g. case law, experiential), workshops (n = 5), focus groups (n = 4), and participant observation (n = 3). Further, about 32% of all papers used more than one type of data collection source.

Most papers (80%) used one main type of analysis, which ranged from content analysis to theoretical (Fig. 4c): the most commonly used were content analysis (n = 61), descriptive analysis (n = 44), modelling (n = 18), and statistical (n = 18), whereas only six used theoretical or ethnographic analysis.

Engagement was not a commonly used approach: only 50 papers involved some sort of engagement with communities or another group (e.g. government, ENGOs). Of these, 8% engaged with communities in their research designs, 15% engaged other groups such as government, ENGOs, or industry, and about 6% engaged with both communities and some other group. Under half of these papers, 40%, focused on specific coastal or inland communities, whereas the remaining papers did not.

Research Question 2: How does the literature relate to objectives in EBM?

With one exception, all the papers were related to at least one of the four EBM Pillars: 52% were associated with only one Pillar, 31% were associated with two Pillars, 13% with three Pillars, and 3% with all four Pillars (Fig. 5). Fifty-eight percent of papers that were associated with one Pillar were associated with the Governance Pillar, 26% with the Social/Cultural Pillar, and the remaining papers with the Economic or Ecological Pillar (Fig. 6a).

The papers that addressed two pillars included all six unique combinations of the four Pillars (Fig. 6b). The most common combinations were Governance-Economic and Governance-Social/Cultural. The least common were Ecological-Economic and Ecological-Social/Cultural. The most common combinations of the three Pillars were Economic-Social/Cultural-Governance and Ecological-Social/Cultural-Governance (Fig. 6c), and the least was Ecological-Economic-Governance. Across the 175 papers that addressed EBM, 83 focused on more than one EBM Pillar resulting in 118 papers associated with the Governance Pillar, 76 with the Social/Cultural Pillar, 63 with the Economic Pillar, and 35 with the Ecological pillar.

The papers were not evenly distributed across the main objectives within each Pillar (Table 4). In the Governance Pillar, most papers with one objective were associated with Governance Structures and Process, with Productivity in the Ecological Pillar, Economic Sustainability in the Economic Pillar, and Sustainable Communities in the Social Cultural Pillar. There were also many papers that were aligned with more than one main objective, particularly in the Ecological Pillar where 18/35 papers were associated with Productivity and Habitat (Table 4). In the Social/Cultural Pillar, 21/76 papers were related to all six possible combinations of any two objectives. One paper was related to all four main objectives of the Social/Cultural Pillar. Two papers were related to the three Ecological main objectives, and these papers were also associated with two of the other EBM Pillars.

Research Question 3: To what extent is that literature framed for practical integration of advice into decision making?

To address RQ3, the 176 papers were first explored to determine whether the focus of the research was strategic or tactical: 81% of papers had a strategic focus, 8% were tactical, 5% were both, and 6% were unclear. Regarding the alignment of the papers with different governmental jurisdictions, 64% aligned with a federal jurisdiction, 4% with a provincial jurisdiction, 30% with both, and 2% were unclear. All papers were identified with at least one sector: 95 papers (over 50%) aligned with just one Sector, 55 with two Sectors, 19 with three Sectors, and 7 with four sectors (Supplementary Material 3, Table 7).

Most of the research (77%) was aligned with one of the following five DFO Sectors, Policy and Economics (n = 48), Resource Management and Licensing (n = 38), Marine Planning and Conservation (n = 24), Aquaculture Management (n = 16), and Indigenous Fisheries Management (n = 10). Eleven papers aligned with Provincial Government (Supplementary Material 3, Table 7). The papers that aligned with Policy and Economics, Marine Planning and Conservation, and Aquaculture management were the most diverse, including papers that were associated with two, three, and four sectors. About 34% of the papers aligned with Resource Management and Licensing were associated with another sector, mostly frequently with Policy and Economics. No other sectors were noted for the papers aligned with Indigenous Fisheries Management. Few papers were associated with Science (3), Species at Risk (n = 5), or Small Craft Harbours (n = 5). A few papers were associated with other Federal Government departments, including Environment and Climate Change Canada, Department of Natural Resources, and Transport Canada (see Supplementary Material 3, Table 7 or more details).

Less than half of the 176 papers (44%) identified recommendations for practice, meaning most (56%) did not. Of the 78 papers that included practical recommendations, 37 included a single recommendation: 15 for Governance, 11 for Science, 6 for Policy, 2 for Decision-making, 2 for Other (Health and Safety and Education), and 1 for regulations. Multiple recommendations were made in 41 papers, which ranged from two types of recommendations to five types of recommendations (Supplementary Material 3: Table 8). When summed over all the 78 papers, recommendations for Governance were the most frequent, followed by recommendations for Science, Policy, Decision-making, and Regulations.

Almost half of the 78 papers that included recommendations for practice (n = 34) also provided insights for their implementation. Around half of the papers providing recommendations related to decision-making, governance, and multiple recommendations also provided insights for their implementation, whereas less than a third of the papers with recommendations for science included such insights. Interestingly, of the 14 papers that involved community engagement in their approach, 10 included recommendations for practice, suggesting that SSH research that involves community engagement is more likely to result in SSH research that is useful for EBM.

Discussion

This review identifies the broad scope of SSH research concerning marine social-ecological systems in Atlantic Canada, and highlights the considerable potential of this research to contribute to EBM and to existing marine system management, policy, and governance. With one exception, all the papers were aligned with one or more of the four EBM pillars. All papers were also aligned with federal and provincial jurisdictions, with a focus on at least one sector in these jurisdictions. However, recommendations for practice were more limited and there were relatively few insights for practical integration. In summary, virtually all the research reviewed can contribute to EBM in different ways. Thus, drawing from the scope and results of this study, opportunities exist for future research to consider how to support the integration of SSH in EBM and existing ocean management and governance, with strategies and lessons applicable globally. Key aspects of these results are discussed below, and their implications explored to question how to leverage SSH into managing and governing human use of marine systems in Atlantic Canada and beyond.

A broad scope of social sciences for EBM; humanities under-represented

The broad scope of SSH applied to marine systems reflected a large range of author disciplinary backgrounds and a diversity of research subjects. The results highlight opportunities to inform a range of applications for EBM, as well as existing ocean management, policy, and governance. With respect to research foci, the majority of papers were coastal and about fisheries. This is not surprising given that at the beginning of the sampling time frame, research focused on the restructuring and rebuilding of fisheries in Atlantic Canada (e.g. Mason 2002, Dolan et al. 2005).

The results also indicate geographic diversity, addressing EBM relevant issues across all four provinces. The increased coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially since 2018, can be associated with the transnational research hub, the Ocean Frontier Institute (OFI), and its social science-based modules (e.g. Lorenzi and Chuenpagdee 2020, Daly and Chuenpagdee 2021). The considerable representation of research related to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was also linked to OFI, as well as the OceanCanada Partnership (e.g. Andrews et al. 2021, Eger et al. 2021) and the Canadian Fisheries Research Network (e.g. Barnett 2018, Parlee and Wiber 2018). The results therefore point to key roles that collaborative research networks and their funding play in fostering research generation for use in EBM explicitly (e.g. Epstein et al. 2018) and implicitly.

One disciplinary gap noted in the review was the absence of humanities research, such as history, philosophy, linguistics, ethics, and the arts. Some papers were connected to topics that may be explored from humanities-based methodologies, including historical research (e.g. Banoub 2020), as well as research on community-based arts (e.g. Murray and Tilley 2006). Yet, the research was not explicitly based in the humanities. It is possible that this absence may have resulted from the search string with terms that may not be used in the humanities, disciplinary preferences for publishing type and venue, the expectations for quantity of published works relative to social science disciplines (Mrva-Montoya 2021, Mrva-Montoya and Luca 2021), and/or the potentially limited involvement of humanists in the large-scale research networks that drove some of the research reviewed in this study.

Alignment to all EBM Pillars, especially Governance and Social/Cultural pillars

The papers were aligned with the four pillars of the EBM Framework, although not equally. The Governance Pillar and objectives [i.e. governance structures and processes (e.g. Pinkerton et al. 2018), governance outcomes (e.g. Frost 2021), and legal obligations and other commitments (e.g. Davis and Wagner 2006)] received the most research attention solely or in association with objectives from one or more other pillars. The results demonstrate that SSH is an important source of knowledge for governance considerations in EBM, including with potential to develop and apply Governance Objectives.

Research was also strongly associated with the Social/Cultural Pillar solely or in part, highlighting inputs for an understanding of sustainable communities in EBM. These results can help unpack dimensions and scales of sustainable communities, related to diverse topics. These include adaptation and climate change (e.g. Manuel et al. 2015), community perspectives (e.g. Smith et al. 2014), and human dimensions (e.g. Charles and Wilson 2009), along with their connections to other social/cultural considerations, such as with health and well-being (e.g. DesRivres et al. 2017), culture (McMillan and Prosper 2016), or with ethical and just activities (e.g. Davis 2000).

Research associated with Economic and Ecological Pillars was least frequent in the sample. Economic research can inform EBM on the economic drivers and impacts of marine systems, including related to fisheries in rural coastal communities (Carruthers et al. 2019), global market changes (Perry et al. 2011), subsidies (Munro and Sumaila 2002), cost-benefit analysis (Chang et al. 2014), and more. The research reviewed highlighted the distribution of costs and benefits from economic development (Squires and Wiber 2018), economic equity and justice (Sabau and Boksch 2017), implications of community access to fish (Foley and Mather 2016), changing economic geographies (Mather 2013), and financialization in seafood processing (Knott and Neis 2017).

Of the papers associated with ecological objectives, most related in some way to productivity (e.g. Olusanya and van Zyll de Jong 2018, Milewski et al. 2021) and the least to biodiversity (e.g. Pitcher et al. 2004, Perry et al. 2011). When papers were associated with ecological objectives, they often involved interdisciplinary research and were led by researchers from natural science disciplines (e.g. Harnish and Wilson 2009, Rouxel and Montevecchi 2018), including those affiliated with DFO (e.g. Greenan et al. 2019, Mullowney et al. 2020). These papers linked governance and social/cultural considerations to scientific assessments of environmental change, and provided opportunities to see interactions and connections across diverse pillars to which the research was aligned, a need identified in EBM literature (Leslie et al. 2015, Levin et al. 2018).

Inconsistent framing for practical integration

Most papers were broadly aligned with different federal sectors within and outside of DFO, with half the sample aligned with multiple sectors, largely in connection with DFO. This included, e.g. research focused on diverse ocean activities (e.g. Wiber et al. 2012) or climate change (e.g. Rapaport et al. 2015). Research also addressed sectors in other federal and provincial jurisdictions. This was the case for most fisheries research that incorporated seafood processing (e.g. Asante et al. 2021), fishing safety (e.g. Power 2008), aquaculture research, which is related to federal and provincial governments (e.g. Maxwell and Filgueira 2020), or research focused on coastal zones (e.g. Ross and Fanning 2021). Thus, the SSH research implies the interconnectedness of issues of concern to multiple federal, and at times, provincial sectors regarding aquatic systems.

Despite the research alignment to governmental sectors, less than half of the papers included practical recommendations and of those, only 34 included insights into how to use them. Some caution should be used in interpreting these results since there are diverse motivations underlying the peer reviewed research, including that not all researchers intend to inform practice. For example, the sample included scholarship largely for theory development (e.g. Wiber 2014, Foley 2019), reflecting important contributions to academic knowledge. As highlighted outside of Atlantic Canada, there may also be institutional barriers (Cvitanovic et al. 2015) leading to researchers not knowing where to direct their research findings. Further, all connections to SSH subjects may not yet be apparent, necessitating further theoretical exploration. Finally, in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere, there are many avenues for SSH to make an impact in government, non-governmental groups, communities, and beyond (Haugen et al. 2024b, Tam et al. 2024). Thus, there may be other explanations why practical recommendations may not be present in some papers, including journal and peer-review length restrictions and preferences of peer reviewers, and preferences to communicate practical recommendations in other venues such as directly with government or communities, or in reports, policy briefs, and Op-Eds.

Recommendations and next steps

The need for SSH is demonstrated by increasing demand for inputs to meet regulatory and policy mandates, which are increasingly present in legal and policy systems outside of Atlantic Canada (Stephenson et al. 2018). The discussion now turns to the implication of these results with a focus on how the need for SSH can be addressed through the scope of SSH research, its practical application, and the need for capacity building.

Expand and diversify the scope of research

The results imply several prospects to expand and diversify the scope of SSH research, especially related to social/cultural considerations, and humanities for EBM. Advancing sustainable communities is an important aspect of EBM globally, particularly in response to emerging legal and policy mandates (Dickey-Collas et al. 2022). The results show the importance and need for SSH research about justice (e.g. Barnett and Eaken 2015), culture (e.g. Chen et al. 2020), Indigenous worldviews, principles, and perspectives (e.g. Denny and Fanning 2016), occupational health and safety as well as gender (e.g. Neis et al. 2013) and the intersection of gender and labour (e.g. Cullum 2009). Together, SSH research on these topics can help broaden the base of social/cultural knowledge for EBM, and help prepare the base for more diverse and holistic regulatory and policy mandates (Stephenson et al. 2021). For example, there is recognition of justice and equity in Canada’s commitments to marine systems, including in Atlantic Canada (Knott et al. 2024), and in global research campaigns and grassroots movements related to Blue Justice (Jentoft et al. 2022; see also Blythe et al. 2023). As this recognition grows, EBM will need stronger support from SSH research that contributes to objectives reflecting justice and equity principles and frameworks (Long et al. 2017, Bennett et al. 2021, Bennett 2022). Such research can guide trade-off decisions between human and environmental needs (Voss et al. 2014, Epstein et al. 2018, Pinkerton et al. 2019, Stephenson et al. 2023).

Similarly, research is needed related to culture, including about Indigenous knowledge, worldviews and practices, especially in response to recognition in Canada and globally for Indigenous rights, knowledge, and contributions to sustainability (e.g. McMillan and Prosper 2016, Reid et al. 2021). Although this review included some papers on Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing, the search string and protocol may not capture all relevant research. There are diverse terms used in the region such as Indigenous knowledge research has, over time, been referred to as traditional knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge, or Aboriginal traditional knowledge among others (McGregor et al. 2023). Meanwhile, Indigenous knowledge research may also be advanced through other venues, including the grey literature.

To expand and diversify the scope of SSH research for EBM, opportunities exist to co-design and develop research to further understand culturally based principles and concepts concerning aquatic resource relationships and use, especially following Indigenous-designed principles and data sovereignty priorities. Addressing the need in EBM (Dickey-Collas et al. 2022), cultural SSH research can encourage locally and culturally sensitive governance mechanisms for EBM, as documented outside of Atlantic Canada (Lertzman 2010, Taikiwai et al. 2017). This research can challenge EBM shaped by western ways of knowing, question how, and to what extent, Indigenous and other cultural practices can inform EBM development (Chanza and Musakwa 2021) and provide approaches to do so (Alexander et al. 2019b, Latulippe and Klenk 2020, Reid et al. 2021).

Account for multiple activities and objectives

SSH can help meet the need for more integrative and holistic EBM by contributing knowledge on cumulative effects and interactions of multiple activities in ocean spaces, coastal zones, across value chains, and in multi-jurisdictional uses like aquaculture. To help mobilize these inputs, research is required that links multiple EBM pillars, that advances interdisciplinary decision-making advice, that supports monitoring across linked human-nature aquatic systems (Geibels et al. 2013; see Lenfest Fishery Ecosystem Taskforce 2016, Levin et al. 2018), and that helps ground EBM in its appropriate context (see Tallis et al. 2010). To this end, there are different SSH approaches including those that draw on integrative and multi-dimensional frameworks (e.g. Brueckner-Irwin et al. 2019, Stephenson et al. 2023, Stephenson and Hobday 2024). The results indicate that integrative SSH may be most effectively supported through large interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research projects and syntheses.

Resolve contradictions for practical integration

Much of the SSH research reviewed in this study was aligned with the Governance Pillar and oriented to making strategic changes to management, policy, and governance in addition to contributing academic knowledge. These terms and related concepts also often appeared as keywords. The research was frequently published in journals with policy, management or governance orientation, like Marine Policy. This emphasis was also reflected in the research foci, including related to management, policy, knowledge, political dimensions, and governance. Thus, across all three research questions, results suggest intention to understand, critique, and offer alternatives to current management, policy, and governance. While there is considerable potential to inform alternatives, there is a contradiction in the dearth of practical recommendations to advance alternatives. As discussed, it is possible that practical recommendations are mobilized through other avenues. However, to separate the practical solutions from the problem as articulated in the paper is to limit the accessibility and the potential for broader impact of the research. Lessons can be learned from academic papers with both practical recommendations and insights for practical integration. The insights represented steps, principles, and opportunities that took into consideration challenges or barriers associated with the management, policy, and governance processes and structures to which the practical recommendation was targeted. Implied in these insights was an understanding of how these processes and structures functioned and why. Building an understanding of what reflects practical recommendations and insights for use can help bridge the gap between academia and policy where integrated management is being developed.

Build capacities for SSH in EBM

Future collaborations can help address gaps identified in this review, including by encouraging capacities for cross-case learning, the identification of issues shared across aquatic systems for EBM, and research network building in support of EBM. For example, community engaged research was a key opportunity to strengthen the utility and salience of SSH research for EBM. Of the small number of papers with research that directly engaged with communities, over half included recommendations for practice and included presence of insights for integration (e.g. Khan et al. 2016, Kourantidou et al. 2021). This suggests that when done well, research grounded in community input can provide sound advice. Incorporating and operationalizing community knowledge requires capacity-building and well-designed management structures both to address challenges, track conservation ‘wins’ and ‘losses’ over time (Hamelin et al. 2024), and foster relationships and partnerships with communities and in local governance systems (Fleeger and Becker 2008). However, there are individual and institutional challenges and cultures that can constrain mutual understanding and research partnership (Soomai 2017, Karcher et al. 2021, Singh 2022). Awareness- and capacity-building are needed for communities, SSH researchers, and government to facilitate interactions and partnerships and to overcome these challenges. This can include making space for sharing stories and knowledge, enabling mutual observation of each other’s processes, and co-creating SSH sharing networks (Marshall et al. 2017). Further research is also needed to understand barriers and opportunities for capacity building to support SSH in decision-making (Tam et al. 2024).

While this SSH literature review focused on Atlantic Canada due to the region’s outsized role in fisheries and oceans research and management in Canada, it provides a method, analytical framework, and example for use in other geographic areas and application. Further, it provides an approach and database for further exploration in Canada, as well as highlights the need to explore further the humanities and other SSH research developed for an array of publishing venues. The novelty of this research approach is that it (i) highlights SSH research as a considerable source of knowledge to understand connection among diverse dimensions of marine systems, (ii) demonstrates alignment of SSH research across the four pillars of EBM, and (iii) identifies opportunities for reconciling the gap that exists between SSH research methods and findings, and the implementation of diverse objectives for marine systems governance, management, and policy. This research encourages thinking about how EBM can leverage the theories, concepts, and methods of SSH (Sievanen et al. 2012, Alexander et al. 2019a, Spalding and McKinley 2024), to foster different perspectives on how to improve EBM (Smith et al. 2017; e.g. Long et al. 2017). Meanwhile, as a high-level analysis, this research sets the stage future research, including to expand and diversify SSH for EBM, to develop SSH to help account for multiple activities, and to explore how SSH and EBM can be better positioned to help close the gap for practical integration of SSH in marine system management and governance.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the editor and peer reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, as well as from reviewers who conducted internal review in Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The authors would also like to thank Suzuette Soomai (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) for providing comments on methodology.

Author contributions

Conceptualization—All; Data curation—Evan J. Andrews, Jack Daly, and Alida Bundy; Formal analysis—All; Investigation—All; Methodology—All; Project administration—Evan J. Andrews, Jack Daly, and Alida Bundy; Resources—All; Supervision—Evan J. Andrews, Alida Bundy; Visualization—Jack Daly, Alida Bundy; Writing - original draft—Evan J. Andrews, Jack Daly, and Alida Bundy; Writing - review & editing—All

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Funding

The authors are grateful for funding from several sources. Andrews was supporting through a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council as well as funding and supports from the Ocean Frontier Institute through an award from the Canada First Research Excellence Fund to Memorial University. Nyiawung was supported through Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Partnership Hub (P&E and Science) and Aquatic Ecosystems.

Data availability

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available at the following link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NJg2s8vNF_EbZOtpxXQ6Vjv8aJzjiQNaQXaXm_mAFrU/edit?usp=sharing.

References