People have different perspectives on environmental change and their relations to it. By engaging diverse people and perspectives, science can make important contributions to broad, open-ended, and constructive democratic deliberations about human-environment relations.
A contribution of science to broad deliberation is to mobilize and connect societal actors. Notably, scientists can make visible diverse knowledge, interpretations, and preferences in relation to environmental changes and their effects [54], [55]. For example, bringing together local residents and decision-makers has been crucial to discuss avalanche threats and preparedness. The collective deliberation that researchers have facilitated and mediated in the Westfjords can balance different perceptions and biases: some local residents might underestimate the risks due to their place attachment, others might be more careful as they witnessed past disasters, and decision-makers located far away from settlements might overlook local particularities [Interview 9]. Mobilization of different perspectives also matters for coming to terms with loss, such as the projected cessation of the once valuable driftwood supply.
A contribution in support of open-ended deliberation is to trigger reflection processes. Science can question and assess to what extent existing structures and processes are suitable for achieving resilient human-environment relations [56], [57]. Research on the quota system in Icelandic fisheries has shown that the system, which relies on biological advice, led to socio-economic decline in many rural communities. Science can support reflection on the basic design of the system and on the incorporation of scientific insights beyond biology [Interview 2]. At this point, however, science might come to clash with powerful economic interests that seek to maintain the current system [Interview 9]. Interests—and emotions—are also at play when it comes to dealing with avalanche hazards. The choice between continued high investments into defense measures or relocation of residents looms large over some settlements [Interview 9]. Science could accompany deliberations about such difficult choices.
A contribution to constructive deliberation is to provide a sound knowledge base for stewards who assume responsibility for the environment. Scientists can identify potential trade-offs in environmental decision-making, assess the impacts of different decision options, and monitor achievement of agreed goals [58], [59]. Here, the example of seaweed comes to mind. Together with local knowledge holders, science can pin down what sustainable seaweed production means and can report on the chosen indicators. The results can inform the practices of seaweed farmers who see themselves as stewards of the marine ecosystem [Interview 10]. Where stewardship of the local population is not recognized, however, tensions may arise between scientific and local knowledge. Science-informed nature protection measures, such as restrictions on the harvesting of seabird eggs in the Westfjords, may clash with local traditions of sustainable resource use [Interview 3].
