390 S. Lovell et al.
ecosystems were already significantly degraded by the mid 1990s. Even prior to the volcanic eruption, lobster landings were reduced on Montserrat, and conch harvests showed signs of depletion as early as the 1960s (Luckhurst & Marshalleck, 1995; Jeffers, 1996).Therefore, the fact that sev- eral interviewees described the ecosystem of 20–30 years ago for Antigua and Barbuda and pre-volcano (1995) for Montserrat as ‘pristine,’ and used the state of the ecosystem in that time period as a baseline against which to compare current conditions is further indication of a shifted baseline in the perception of pristine reefs.
Natural disasters, shifted baselines and the policy placebo
Interviewees referring to the environment of 20–30 years ago as pristine exemplifies the insidious nature of the shift- ing baseline syndrome. Description of Montserrat’s pre- volcano environment as pristine suggests the role of natural disasters in obscuring baselines. Although nearshore ecosys- temswere substantially altered by the volcano, this emphasis could mask anthropogenic effects on marine species. Interviewees from Montserrat consistently reported taxa as less abundant than on the other two islands, both before and after the volcano (Supplementary Fig. 2), which may be a result of lowered expectations for abundance, consistent with the shifting baseline
syndrome.Work on the syndrome has typically focused on effects of chronic exploitation, and the role of natural disasters in recalibrating expectations for nature requires exploration. There was a clear disparity between ecological data and
interviewee perceptions of recent increases in species pro- tected by legislation, which we suggest can be attributed to the occurrence of a policy placebo effect. Although the term placebo effect is typically confined to the medical field, it is broadly defined as an effect that is initiated and maintained by the expectation of a symptom change (Price et al., 2008). As we did not anticipate such an effect, our interviews were not designed to address this issue, and therefore we can only speculate on its causes. Fishers may have reported recoveries in the hope this would result in removal of fishing restric- tions. However, it could also be the result of poor under- standing of life histories and recovery times, wishful thinking in the wake of recent legislation, a response to well publicized conservation actions, or even the modern culture of instant gratification. Although the policy placebo effect may appear benign,
it could be detrimental to conservation, particularly when coupled with the shifting baseline syndrome, which is likely to lower both targets for recovery and motivation for continued restoration efforts. The policy placebo ef- fect may similarly reduce motivation for restoration and continued conservation, if resource users believe a popu- lation has recovered. On the other hand, the effect could
inspire further restoration efforts and trust in manage- ment decisions because people perceive they are effective. In either case, this placebo effect illuminates the need to pair local ecological knowledge with ecological monitor- ing and the use of historical data to understand long-term change. Although local ecological knowledge is useful when it is taken cumulatively and when resource users have direct experience that overlaps with periods of de- cline, the perceptions of resource users (especially those without long-term experience) are not always consistent with actual current or past ecological states. To manage and restore ecosystems effectively, we need to interweave firm understandings of history, ecology and local knowledge.
Acknowledgements Wethank Colby College’s Goldfarb Center for funding SL, two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments, Manny Gimond for technical assistance, and Jeremy Jackson for facilitating author collaboration and inspiring this work.
Author contributions Project conception: AJ and LM; data collec- tion: SL and RR; data analysis and visualization: SL and LM; writing and editing: SL and LM.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research was deemed Institutional Review Board exempt by the Institutional Review Board Chair of Colby College. Interviews on Montserrat were conducted after obtaining a Memorandum of Understanding with the Montserrat Department of Environment.
References
ALBUQUERQUE, K.D.&MCELROY, J.L. (1995) Antigua and Barbuda:A Legacy of Environmental Degradation, Policy Failure, and Coastal Decline. Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and Training Project/Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities, Arlington, USA.
ALVAREZ-FILIP, L., DULVY, N.K., GILL, J.A., COTE, I.M. & WATKINSON, A.R. (2009) Flattening of Caribbean coral reefs: regionwide declines in architectural complexity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 3019–3025.
BAKER,R.(1748) A New and Exact Map of the Island of Antigua in America. Museum of Antigua and Barbuda, St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda.
BARBUDA COUNCIL (2013) The Fisheries Regulations. Antigua and Barbuda. ATG-2013-R-93554.
BARBUDA COUNCIL (2014) The Barbuda (Fisheries) Regulations. Antigua and Barbuda. ATG-2014-R-99617.
CARPENTER, R.C. & EDMUNDS, P.J. (2006) Local and regional scale recovery of Diadema promotes recruitment of scleractinian corals. Ecology Letters, 9, 271–280.
COLERIDGE, H.N. (1826) Six Months in theWest Indies. Digitized by the Internet Archive. John Murray, London, UK.
CRAMER, K.L., JACKSON, J.B.C., ANGIOLETTI, C.V., LEONARD-PINGEL,J. & GUILDERSON,T.P.(2012) Anthropogenic mortality on coral reefs in Caribbean Panama predates coral disease and bleaching. Ecology Letters, 15, 561–567.
Oryx, 2020, 54(3), 383–391 © 2018 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605318000169
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148
