Why Marine Citizenship Matters 

At a time when ocean sustainability debates are often dominated by science and policy frameworks, a growing body of research is shifting attention toward something more fundamental: people. How do individuals relate to the ocean? Who gets to participate in decisions about it? And what does it mean to be a “marine citizen”? 

In this conversation, Ahmetcan Uzlaşık speaks with Dr. Pamela Buchan, an interdisciplinary marine scientist whose work spans marine biology, coastal governance and human geography. With experience in public engagement and political decision-making – including serving as an elected member of Plymouth City Council and holding roles in marine authorities – her research focuses on marine identity, citizenship, and participatory governance. 

My background is quite interdisciplinary. I started in marine biology, but then moved into science communication, where I worked closely with volunteers, people giving their time to causes they believe in. That made me curious about motivation: why some people engage deeply while others don’t. 

At the same time, I missed working with the sea, so I began thinking about people’s relationships with it, why they value it and what drives them to protect it. That gradually led me into social science, even though I didn’t plan it that way. 

Another turning point was my experience in politics. During my PhD, I served as an elected member of a local council. That exposed me to how decision-making actually works, which is very different from how people imagine it. It also raised questions about participation: why do some people engage in democracy and others don’t? 

Marine identity itself wasn’t the starting point; it emerged from trying to understand what really drives engagement. 

It’s best understood as a spectrum rather than a single behaviour. It includes everything from individual actions, like consumption choices, to more public forms of engagement such as advocacy, campaigning and political participation. 

Importantly, it’s not only about responsibilities but also about rights. People have a right to participate in environmental decision-making, including marine issues. The challenge is that the ocean often feels distant, so those rights are not always fully realised in practice. 

As marine issues become more visible, through offshore energy, pollution debates or biodiversity concerns, people are starting to engage more. But there is still a gap between formal rights and meaningful participation. 

often private actions like not harming the environment. Thick citizenship is more active, public and participatory. 

In a marine context, thin citizenship might be avoiding littering or making sustainable consumer choices. Thick citizenship involves stepping into the public sphere, campaigning, organising, influencing decisions or even taking on leadership roles. 

The key difference is visibility and agency. Thick citizenship requires a willingness to engage with others and to shape how society interacts with the ocean, not just how you personally behave. 

There is definitely a risk of that. If we only focus on individual actions, we ignore the broader structures that actually shape environmental outcomes; governments, regulations, and industries. 

Individuals have limited influence over these systems. Most people can change their own behaviour, but they cannot directly regulate corporations or rewrite policy. That makes it problematic to place too much responsibility on individuals alone. 

At the same time, individuals still matter. People carry their values into their workplaces and communities, and depending on their position, they can influence larger systems. 

So rather than choosing one or the other, it’s about recognising both the limits and the potential of individual action, while also strengthening institutional accountability. 

Participation tends to be uneven. In theory, there are processes that allow public involvement, but in practice they can be difficult to engage with meaningfully. 

Often the scale is too large or abstract, especially in offshore contexts. By the time decisions become tangible, when projects affect coastal communities, many key choices have already been made. 

Typically, those with more resources and formal roles, such as industries or established stakeholders, have greater access to decision-making processes. Local communities often enter later and with less influence. 

That said, public pressure can still play a significant role. When enough people mobilise around an issue, such as plastic pollution or water quality, it can shift political priorities and lead to change. 

This is where identity becomes important. Knowledge and values alone don’t always lead to action, partly because people face barriers like time, cost or lack of influence. 

But when the ocean becomes part of someone’s identity, especially if their livelihood depends on it, threats to the ocean feel personal. They are not just environmental problems; they challenge how someone sees themselves. 

That creates a much stronger motivation to act. In those cases, engagement is not just a choice, it becomes almost inevitable. 

In most cases, not fully. Participation often happens at the wrong time or at the wrong scale. People are either brought in too early, when decisions are still abstract and difficult to relate to, or too late, when the key choices have already been made and it becomes very difficult to influence outcomes in a meaningful way.  

Structurally, participation needs to be embedded much more deeply into governance systems so that it is not treated as an add on, but as a core part of how decisions are made. 

People connect to the ocean in very different ways. Some have an emotional or cultural connection, while others depend on it materially for their livelihoods. 

These relationships influence how and why people engage. For example, someone whose work or daily life depends on the ocean is more likely to take action when that relationship is threatened. 

Even for those who are not directly dependent, strong emotional or identity-based connections can still lead to engagement. The key factor is whether people feel that changes in the ocean affect something meaningful in their lives. 

Ultimately, it’s about working across all levels at once: building awareness, improving systems and creating real opportunities for people to influence outcomes.  
 
In the long term, we need stronger ocean literacy and civic understanding so people know both why the ocean matters and how they can engage in governance. 

In the short term, we need to improve existing processes, making participation more accessible, timely and meaningful. That includes working with institutions, policymakers and industry to change how decisions are made in practice. 

As a final note, ocean sustainability is not just a scientific or technical issue, it is deeply social and political. If we want healthier oceans, we need people who feel connected to them, understand their importance, and have real opportunities to participate in decisions. 

Marine citizenship is about creating that connection and ensuring it translates into meaningful influence.