Finding common ground: Understanding and engaging with science mistrust in the Great barrier reef region

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 19; no. 8; p. e0308252
• Main Authors: Curnock, Matthew I, Nembhard, Danielle, Smith, Rachael, Sambrook, Katie, Hobman, Elizabeth V, Mankad, Aditi, Pert, Petina L, Chamberland, Emilee
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 16.08.2024; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Adult; Aquatic ecosystems; Australia; Catchments; Climate Change; Climatic changes; Collaboration; Conservation of Natural Resources; Coral Reefs; Decision making; Ecological function; Ecosystem; Ecosystem management; Ecosystem services; Ecosystems; Environmental management; Environmental policy; Environmental protection; False information; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Natural resource management; Natural resources; Protection and preservation; Public Opinion; Public participation; Reefs; Regions; Resource management; Respondents; Rivers; Science; Scientists; Skepticism; Social networks; Surveys; Surveys and Questionnaires; Trust; Trust - psychology; Typology; Waterways; Australia
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308252

At a time when ambitious environmental management initiatives are required to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems, public trust in the science that underpins environmental policy and decision-making is waning. This decline in public trust coincides with a rise in misinformation, and threatens to undermine public support for, and participation in, environmental protection. Our study investigates the prevalence and predictors of mistrust in science associated with the protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and its catchments. Using survey data from 1,877 residents of the GBR region, we identify environmental values, perceptions, and attitudes that are associated with science mistrust. Our results include a typology of GBR science trust and scepticism. Science-sceptical respondents, representing 31% of our sample, were likely to perceive waterway management decisions as being unfair, felt less responsible, and were less motivated to contribute to improving waterway health than those with greater trust in science. Science-sceptical respondents also had differing perceptions of some threats to waterways, in particular climate change. However, similarities and 'common ground' between respondents with varying levels of trust in science included a shared recognition of the importance of waterways' ecosystem services, and a shared perception of the relative health and problems within their regions' waterways. Our findings can help to break down assumptions about science-sceptical groups in the GBR region and elsewhere. We offer recommendations to guide more constructive engagement that seeks to restore trust and build consensus on mutual goals and pathways to protect vital ecosystem functions and services.