Anthony Ryan

Managed retreat of coastal communities: understanding responses to projected sea level rise

Managed retreat – the relocation of homes and infrastructure under threat from coastal flooding – is one of the few policy options available for coastal communities facing long-term risks from accelerated sea level rise. At present, little is known about how the Australian public perceives policy options to mitigate sea level rise risks. This paper explores a range of different decision-making criteria used to assess a managed retreat scheme. A metatheoretical social functionalist framework is used to make sense of personal concerns elicited from an online survey asking respondents to consider a managed retreat scheme. The framework proposes that people can act intuitively as scientists, economists, politicians, prosecutors and theologians, when considering a complex topic such as managed retreat policy. The research found that the survey respondents are more likely to consider the topic of managed retreat from multiple functional perspectives than from a single functional perspective. The type of social functionalist frameworks that people used to assess the Conditional Occupancy Rights scheme was found to be influenced by their perceptions of sea level rise risk. The findings have implications for public debates about the long-term risks of sea level rise and for engaging with the community about managed retreat policy options.

Reciprocity as deliberative capacity: lessons from a citizen’s deliberation on carbon pricing mechanisms in Australia

Australia has seen a deep division in opinion in search of a carbon pricing mechanism. While concepts of carbon taxation and emission trading have comparable public support, climate scepticism is infuencing the debates in political and public spheres in downplaying the need for carbon pricing. Public deliberation is a possible engagement option to address the conflict inherent in climate policy preferences. This research explores the way that a deliberative forum involving twenty-four Australians promoted effective communication between participants through which conflict between policy preferences became more tangible. While the forum did not eliminate disagreement in preferences in the choice of carbon pricing mechanisms, participants reached consensus on fundamental principles such as the need for trusted sources of information, trusted governance procedures, and transparent accountability by appropriate institutions. Shared political expectations encouraged dialogue and cooperation in discussions by enhancing reciprocal understanding. Two sceptical participants who originally had strong opinions different from the rest of the group managed to find common ground. Public deliberative forums that are conducive to reciprocal communication are able to provide a mechanism for joint problem-solving processes that are less adversarial and more responsive to the range of peoples preferences.