Marine Policy 60 (2015) 149–161

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

http://d0308-59

n CorrE-m

erin.bohmaxine

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Media representations of risk: The reporting of dredge spoil disposalin the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park at Abbot Point

Ally J. Lankester a,n, Erin Bohensky b, Maxine Newlands c

a Independent Consultant, 2/48 Cook Street, North Ward, QLD 4810, Australiab CSIRO Land and Water, Private Mail Bag, Aitkenvale, QLD 4814, Australiac Department of Journalism, College of Arts, Society and Education, James Cook University, QLD 4810, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 15 February 2015Received in revised form6 June 2015Accepted 6 June 2015

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.06.0097X/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

esponding author.ail addresses: ally.lankester@gmail.com (A.J. Lensky@csiro.au (E. Bohensky),.newlands@jcu.edu.au (M. Newlands).

a b s t r a c t

The disposal of dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park for port expansion at Abbot Point inNorth Queensland, Australia, has been a contentious issue receiving extensive media coverage. The mediahas played a key role in representing different risk perceptions, and potentially influencing policy de-cision-making. This paper identifies different perceptions of risk portrayed by local, regional, interstateand national print media in relation to the dredge spoil issue from January 2013 until February 2014.Media analysis explored the questions: how is ‘risk’ represented, who is linked to different risk per-ceptions, and how has the media coverage of the issue changed over time? Results show that ‘risk’ to theGreat Barrier Reef from the dredge spoil was framed by four main themes: Environmental Disaster, Socio-economic Disaster, Equilibrium and Industrialism. Environmental Disaster was the most prominent overall,and often positioned in opposition to Industrialism. In January 2013 the dredge spoil issue was mainlycovered by local sources and focused on risks to local livelihoods and environments. By February 2014the issue was covered by sources throughout Australia and represented a range of risks to the GBR, andits World Heritage status, in relation to coal mining and port developments. Insights for communicationfrom this analysis include the importance of using clear language that provides exact and solid examplesof risks, especially in light of the media's agenda-setting power and with an issue that the general publicdoes not have direct experience.

& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

On the 31st of January 2014 final approval was given to dredgethree million cubic meters of the ocean bottom for expansion of coalexport terminals at Abbot Point in North Queensland, Australia, andthen dispose of the spoil within the borders of the Great Barrier ReefMarine Park (GBRMP). The risk to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) fromthis development has been a contested issue in Australia.

The concept of ‘risk’ is often defined technically in terms of themagnitude of potential damage and probability of occurrence of anevent. In the context of social-ecological systems, risk tends to bedefined as a function of the probability of occurrence of a hazard andthe social vulnerability of the exposed system [1]. In this paper, ‘risk’is interpreted from a social-cultural perspective as a broader termthat encapsulates complex social, ecological, political and economic

ankester),

processes [2]. As noted by Sonnett [12], the construction of percep-tions of risk (i.e. is there a risk? what is the threat or risk? what/whois at risk? how much is the risk?) is a social-cultural process whereindifferent individuals and groups interpret the world through differ-ent ‘worldviews’ or social, cultural and political lenses that aremediated by social relations [3,4]. In other words, the anticipation ofdamage from particular actions and the interpretation of the like-lihood that a certain event will occur are often subjective and nor-mative processes. An extensive literature on the psychology of in-dividual risk perception addresses this, emphasizing factors such asexperience, e.g. [5], as well as value orientations, knowledge, andperceptions of responsibility [6]. Individuals also tend to appraise riskin ways that maintain identity with their cultural community [7]. Inaddition, recent events and their encoding in social memory canaffect risk perception [8,9]. Thus, not all social-ecological problems ordangers become labeled as risks and understandings and judgmentsof those threats or dangers that become labeled as a risk may varyamong contexts, groups and actors [10].

One particularly influential mediator of risk perceptions is themedia. The media plays an important role in mediating and

A.J. Lankester et al. / Marine Policy 60 (2015) 149–161150

shaping public understanding and debate of the risks associatedwith social-ecological issues. How and why the media shapepublic opinion on risk can be understood through the idea ofgatekeeping. Gatekeeping, an early concept derived from White's[11] work on flows of information, shows that information passesthrough several gates before becoming news; each gate is oper-ated by gatekeepers such as editors, owners, advertisers, andreaderships who view the information through various politicaland socio-cultural ideological positions. White [11] observes thatgatekeepers do not operate in a vacuum, but work within struc-tures; they are affected by the larger socio-political system.

The media's construction of risk concerning environmental issueshas been extensively researched [12–14]. Ulrich Beck notes “newsmedia do not only function in terms of a global focusing of events;rather, the news media adopt a more performative stand, activelyenacting certain issues as global risks” [15]. Lidskog and Olausson[16] found that stakeholder claims about the necessity of sprayingmosquito and moth outbreaks were legitimized by the media in thecase of mosquitos, but de-legitimized in the case of moths. Discursivestrategies were used that represented different values and interestsabout human welfare and environmental protection that down-played and emphasized ecological risks for mosquitos and moths,respectively. By establishing a frame or context through which tointerpret events and highlighting particular risks, the routines ofjournalism contribute heavily to the production of dominant mean-ing regarding contested environmental issues.

Media coverage and representations of risks are critical to thepublic's understanding and perception of an issue [17], which canultimately influence political outcomes and policy decision-making[18,19]. Public risk perceptions, for example, shaped by media re-presentations can fundamentally compel or constrain political, eco-nomic and social action to address particular risks [12]. Images,created by interacting public and media discourse on an issue, carrystrong positive or negative emotional ‘charges’ that guide risk deci-sion-making [18]. While media does not tell people what to think, itsets agendas and forges consensus by presenting the public with arange of issues to discuss, reinforcing attitudes and contributing newknowledge or opinion [13–20]. The media regulates what issuesbecome visible, making some issues more prominent in public mindsthan others. Through this selective process, the media legitimizes anddelegitimizes actors' claims, thus, constructing a dominant way ofunderstanding an issue. The media also represents some actors'perspectives more than others' in texts. Particular actors can have thedominant ‘framing power’, or journalist-chosen representation ofviews and positions in relation to an issue, which is an importantform of social influence [21].

The media uses explicit and implicit risk narratives. Risks can bediscussed broadly in terms of possible adverse impacts, or morenarrowly with numbers assigned to the probabilities of differentoutcomes occurring and everyday concepts or language of risk likeinsurance and betting [22]. In the context of climate change, ex-amples of implicit risk narrative include descriptions of the adverseimpacts from greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. sea level rise, and moreextreme weather events). By contrast, an explicit risk narrative ex-ample would be: “There is a 1-in-20 chance—about the same chanceas an American developing colon cancer; twice as likely as anAmerican developing melanoma—that by the end of this century,more than $701 billion worth of existing coastal property will bebelow mean sea levels, with more than $730 billion of additionalproperty at risk during high tide” [23]. These risk narratives, coupledwith different ideologies associated with different cultural groups,and political and economic priorities and strategies, explain differ-ences in the media's reinterpretations of scientific knowledge, whichin turn works to either sustain or destroy the space for particularpolicy options and action [24].

The media's construction and reconstruction of environmental

risks is a continual process that changes over time as political,economic and cultural contexts change [21]. The ‘circuit of culture’model shows how issues cycle through media – producing textsthat define the issue in the public sphere and how audiences,through their own meaning making, decode the media commu-nications in the context of their everyday lives, leading to newmoments of production [24]. Carvalho terms these moments as‘critical discourse moments’: specific happenings that may chal-lenge the ‘established’ discursive position’. Questions to be askedof critical discourse moments include: Did arguments change be-cause of them? Did new alternative views arise? [21]. In otherwords, what key moments or events change how we view a par-ticular situation? There is an ongoing dialectical relationship be-tween public and media discourses that change the way issues areconstructed over time. For example, Gamson and Modigliuani [25]show, through an analysis of media on nuclear power from 1945until 1989, that media representations of the issue, in combinationwith changes in events, were influential in the eventual decline inpublic support for nuclear power. Influential events and factorsshaping media on an issue can be identified through analyzingrepresentations of issues between successive points in time.

This paper explores media representations of perceptions of riskto the GBR from dredging activities for port expansion at Abbot Point.Research questions include: what are the different claims and viewsin relation to the dredge spoil issue and which social actors are linkedto these in the media? How, if at all, has media representation andcoverage of the issue changed over time? These questions are ex-plored through a structural and thematic analysis of Australian printarticles from January 2013, the time of the proposal to dispose ofdredge spoil in the GBRMP, until the proposal's final approval inFebruary 2014. The paper concludes with a discussion of the rolemedia played in shaping public opinion and risk perceptions relatedto the dredge spoil issue in the GBR.

2. Background

The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) is theworld's largest coral reef ecosystem, a national and global touristattraction and important part of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpeople's lives and culture. The GBRWHA covers an area of almost350,000 square kilometers in the Coral Sea and along the coast ofNorth-eastern Australia, and is managed by the Great Barrier ReefMarine Park Authority (GBRMPA) (Fig. 1). The GBRMP was created in1975 with the enactment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act1975 to protect the majority of the reef ecosystem through mon-itoring and regulating human activities such as fishing and tourism.Each year the GBR contributes over $5.7 AUD billion and employsclose to 70,000 full-time workers to the Australian economy, mainlythrough tourism activity [26]. A more recent estimate of the collec-tive monetary value of ecosystem services provided by the GBR putsthis figure in the range of $15–20 billion AUD per year [27]. The GBRwas declared a World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) in 1981 because ofits ‘outstanding universal value’ and unique biological diversity.However, the resilience of the reef is being seriously eroded due toclimate change and impacts from agriculture, fishing, shipping, portactivities, and urban development [28–30].

In the decade to 2011, rapid growth in Chinese demand for coaland other minerals created an increased demand for mineral exportsfrom Australia; prices for Australian minerals tripled leading tomassive investments (e.g. $80 billion a year from 2010 to 2013 forextraction, processing and transport infrastructure) [31]. Queenslandhas been one of the Australian states to experience the recent‘mining boom’ due to its vast coal and gas reserves, particularly inCentral Queensland. The mining boom has seen a marked increase inproposals to expand and develop ports and processing plants along

Fig. 1. Location of Abbot Point, Curtis Island, major population centers along the North Queensland coast and GBRMP (source: GBRMPA).

A.J. Lankester et al. / Marine Policy 60 (2015) 149–161 151

the Queensland coast to cater for existing and projected mineralexports. In October 2010 the Federal Government gave the final ap-proval to the Gladstone Ports Corporation to dredge for four majorcoal seam gas-processing plants on Curtis Island (Fig. 1). This de-velopment involved the dredging of 46 million cubic meters of sea-bed that was deposited in onshore and offshore disposal sites insidethe GBRWHA. Dredging activities near Curtis Island and the rapidrate of coastal developments adjacent to and within the GBR raisedconcern from UNESCO's World Heritage Committee over potentialimpacts on the GBRWHA. Consequently, on the 1st of June 2012UNESCO released a report on the state of the GBR warning that theGBR would be placed on the World Heritage ‘in danger’1 list unless

1 ‘In danger’ refers to conditions that threaten the very characteristics forwhich a property was inscribed on the World Heritage List, and encourages cor-rective action. If a site loses the characteristics that determined its inscription onthe World Heritage List, the World Heritage Committee may decide to delete theproperty from both the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World HeritageList (UNESCO webpage http://whc.unesco.org/en/158/).

the Australian Government could ensure ‘proper’ management andprotection of the reef [32].

Running parallel to the Curtis Island development was the pro-posal to expand the Abbot Point port, near Bowen, to provide exportfacilities for coal mined from the Galilee Basin in Central Queensland(Fig. 1). Fig. 2 provides a timeline of major political decisions in re-lation to dredging in the GBRMP for port expansion at Abbot Point.The Federal Government approved port expansion of terminals forAdani and GVK Hancock coal companies, respectively, at Abbot Pointon 10th December 2012. Subsequently, the State Government-ownedNorth Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation (NQBP) released a proposalto dispose three million cubic meters of dredge spoil in the GBRMP.The Federal Government gave approval to NQBP to dredge for portexpansion at Abbot Point under the Environmental Protection andBiodiversity (EPBC) Act on December 10th 2013. GBRMPA gave ap-proval (under the GBRMP Act) to NQBP to dispose of dredge spoil inthe GBRMP on the 31st January 2013, subject to 47 environmentalconditions. On July 24 2014 the Federal Government gave the final

Fig. 2. Timeline of major decisions related to dredging in the GBRMP for port expansion at Abbot Point, North Queensland, Australia.

A.J. Lankester et al. / Marine Policy 60 (2015) 149–161152

approval to Adani Mining Pty Ltd for the Carmichael coal and railproject (6 open cut pits and 5 underground mines, and a 189-kilo-meter railway line worth $16.5 billion in investment) in CentralQueensland: one of the biggest coalmines in the world and Australia'shistory [33]. Abbot Point will be the port receiving and shipping outthe coal from the Carmichael mine. However, the future of Carmichaelmine may be uncertain with recent figures revealing declining com-modity prices and high production costs are slowing investment inthe mining industry and creating a decrease in planned projects

3. Methods and analytical approach

3.1. Search and filter of articles

The analysis involved a search of print media (i.e. newspapersand printed news source) articles on the GBR from the beginningof January 2013 until the end of February 2014 that were obtainedfrom the Proquest Australia and New Zealand News Stand onlinedatabase. Articles were searched using the term “Great BarrierReef”. Print media was chosen because it continues to play a dailyagenda-setting role in driving the overall news cycle [34]. Thesearticles were filtered and insubstantial and irrelevant articles weredeleted. Deleted articles included: tourism promotions and ad-vertisements; references to the GBR Masters [sports] Games; artcompetitions and festivals that had the GBR as a theme; articlesthat mentioned the GBR for comparative purposes, but were pri-marily about another issue or place (e.g. World Heritage Areas forAustralia); articles that took place in, but were not substantivelyabout the GBR (e.g. tourist death or whale siting); and texts/SMSpieces. From the pool of 2183 articles on the GBR from January2013 to February 2014, 416 articles were manually selected thatdiscussed the disposal of dredge spoil in the GBRMP off Abbot

Point using search terms “Abbot Point” and “dredg*”. A total of 227articles were from local sources, 49 from regional, 59 from inter-state, 81 from national sources. The sources represented a rangeof publishing companies, which are known to reflect differentpolitical views on the environment and other issues [35] (seeAppendix 1A for a list of print media sources from different geo-graphical areas in Australia and their ownership).

3.2. Critical discourse moments

Five ‘critical discourse moments’ were chosen to investigatehow, if at all, the discourse of risk to the GBR from dredging atAbbot Point changed over time due to changes in events in rela-tion to the issue and sought to address the research question:How, if at all, has media representation of the issue changed overtime? Chilton [36] defines these as moments or circumstanceswhen an ‘ideologically distorted communication’ occurs, often attimes or ‘moments’ of discourse crisis. Chilton's argument is thatwithin the timeline of an event or positions, events take place thatcan be seen as a crisis, and the subsequent crisis changes thediscourse. For example, with risk and the GBR, the announcementby Federal Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, to allow dredging atAbbott Point Port became a ‘moment’ for increased public visibilityof the risk. Thus, critical discourse moments involve examiningarticles from different periods over a certain time, which is key toidentifying discursive constructions and turns or continued linesof argument [21]. Focusing on critical moments also allowed for amore manageable amount of data to analyze.

Thematic and some structural analysis was carried out on five‘critical discourse moments’ that were five months: (1) January 2013,when the proposal for dredge spoil disposal in the GBRMP was an-nounced; (2) July 2013, when the decision by the Federal Govern-ment on dredging of Abbot Point for Terminals 0, 2 and 3 was

Fig. 3. Total number, and geographical breakdown, of articles discussing the dis-posal of dredge spoil in the GBRMP at Abbot Point for each month from January2013 until February 2014, highlighting the critical discourse moment months.

A.J. Lankester et al. / Marine Policy 60 (2015) 149–161 153

initially due; (3) December 2013 when the Federal Government an-nounced its decision on dredging for development at Abbot Point;(4) January 2014 following approval decision by the Federal Gov-ernment and leading up to the GBRMPA approval decision on the31st January (4) February 2014, which was the month following theFederal Government and GBRMPA approval of dredge disposal in theGBRMP (Fig. 2). The months of December 2013, January 2014 andFebruary 2014 included or follow on from critical events and showhigh numbers of articles (Fig. 3). Other events happening in thesemonths were release of the Draft Public Environmental Impact As-sessment Report commissioned by the Ports Corporation and launchof a public campaign to protect the reef by the World Wildlife Fundand Australian Marine Conservation Society (January 2013); launch ofa public awareness campaign by the Queensland Resources Council(July 2013); Federal Government approval of Arrow Energy Gas pro-cessing plant on Curtis Island (Gladstone, Central Queensland) andthe pipeline from tenements and Greenpeace campaign to highlightthreats of industrialization and climate change to the Reef (December2013); petition signed by 70,000 people and open letter from 200scientists delivered to GBRMPA to urge them not to approve AbbotPoint dredging project and launch of a Federal Government inquiryto investigate if the dredging for expansion of Gladstone Harborcaused environmental damage, including the mass death of sea life(January 2014); and, legal cases launched by conservation groupsagainst the Abbot Point approvals, and Environmental DefendersOffice campaign pushing for a referendum on awarding the WorldHeritage-listed GBR area legal rights and release of Federal andQueensland government's progress report for UNESCO on how it ismeeting UN recommendations to protect the reef (February 2014).

3.3. Structural analysis

Structural analysis includes describing surface descriptions andstructural organization of articles such as the date of publication,source in which it is published, author and page [21]. Structuralanalysis was used to identify how the coverage, representation ofactors and different themes discussing risk to the GBR from dredgingat Abbot Point changed over time and sought to address the researchquestion: how has the structure of media coverage of the dredgespoil issue changed over time? In doing so, two sets of calculationswere performed: (1) on the articles for each month and (2) on thearticles for each of three critical discourse moment months:

(1)

Calculation of the number of articles for each month in dif-ferent locations that discussed the disposal of dredge spoils inthe GBRMP. Articles were assigned to one of four categories:

(1) local (2) regional Queensland (3) interstate and (4) na-tional. Local sources included newspapers from (and includ-ing) Townsville north of Abbot Point to (and including) Bun-daberg south of Abbot Point. Regional sources includednewspapers north of Townsville and south of Bundaberg, in-cluding Brisbane. Interstate sources included newspapers fromlocations not in Queensland. National sources included TheAustralian newspaper, ABC print media and Australian Asso-ciated Press (AAP).

(2)

Analysis of articles for the critical discourse moment monthsincluded: calculating representation of the different themes inarticles (as percentages of all articles) for each month and thenumber of times different actors were mentioned in articlesfor each month. Actors mentioned twice or less were excluded.

3.4. Thematic analysis

Thematic analysis is a methodology that uses a qualitative ap-proach to identify different assumptions, meanings, processes andlanguage in texts [37]. A thematic analysis approach was used toidentify different representations of risk to the GBR from dredgingat Abbot Point and sought to address the research questions: 1)What are the different claims and views in relation to the dredgingissue and risk? 2) Which social actors are linked to these differentnarratives in the media? 3) How, if at all, has media representationof the issue changed over time?

An inductive and deductive approach was used to identifydifferent understandings and narratives of the dredging issue.Analysis included a search for narratives of ‘disaster or implicitrisk’ and ‘explicit risk’ that have previously been identified inmedia analyses of risk in the context of climate change (e.g. [22,38]– see Section 1). Themes of implicit risk included adverse impacts,whereas themes of explicit risk included probabilities of eventshappening. In our text analysis, we also sought to deductivelyidentify characteristics of environmental discourses such as ‘dis-aster’ and ‘industrialism’, e.g. [39,40]. In addition to deductivelyanalyzing these characteristics, an inductive process of themeidentification was employed.

Thematic analysis was carried out on articles published duringthe critical discourse moment months. For each deductively andinductively derived theme the following characteristics wereidentified: (a) the basic claims, understanding or view of theproblem (b) the perceived risks to the GBR from dredge spoildisposal (c) the key actors and claims or stances they are linked to(d) the authority given to different sources of information, and therole of science and scientific evidence. We put an article in a ca-tegory titled ‘multiple themes’ or ‘no dominant theme’ when itexpressed more than one theme or did not have a dominanttheme. In order to see how changes in the media coverage, andrepresentation of the issue changed over time, analysis also in-cluded calculations (for each critical discourse moment month) ofthe most dominant theme in each article and the number of timesdifferent actors were mentioned.

4. Results

4.1. Number and geographical breakdown of articles over time

The number of articles on dredge spoil disposal in the GBRMPat Abbot Point peaked in January 2013, July 2013 and December2013–Feburary 2014 (Fig. 3). These peaks coincide with the criticaldiscourse moments discussed above and shown in Fig. 2. Thecoverage of dredge spoil disposal in the GBRMP was mostly fromlocal sources until July and increased in regional Queensland,

Table 1Summary of dominant themes of perceptions of risk to the GBR from disposal of dredge spoil in the GBRMP at Abbot Point as represented in print media articles published in January 2013, July 2013, December 2013, January 2014and February 2014.

Theme Basic claims and view of the problem Perceived risks and impacts Key actors Sources of information givenauthority

Examples of narrative

1. Environmentaldisaster

GBR and World Heritage status at risk,dumping of dredge spoil in GBR is cheapestoption, rather than best environmentaloption, oppose any dredging in or near theGBR.

Direct, indirect and cumulative impactson coral reef, sea grass, benthic habitatsand marine species.

� Conservationists� Community activists� Australian Green Party

members andcandidates

Only peer reviewed independentscience can be trusted. Skeptical ofscience commissioned by PortsCorporation and government.

“Dredging three million tonnes of sea-floor and dumping it on the reef wouldthreaten feeding and breeding ground forvulnerable species (AMCS spokesperson,The Daily Mercury 7 Jan).”“The nation was now on track to turn thereef into a coal and gas highway and arubbish dump for dredge spoil (GreensSenator, News Mail Bundaberg, 24 Jan2013). ““Why risk damage to an internationalicon like the GBR (WWF, Cairns Post, 5 Jan2013)?”“…Putting short-term profits before thereef's long-term health (AMCS Spokes-person, Bowen Independent, 19 July2013).”“Our research shows us that a healthy reefactually creates roughly 35,000 more jobsthan the mining industry, with 63,000jobs directly attributable to a thriving reef(Greens Senator, The Courier Mail, Feb 12014).”

2. Socio-economicdisaster

An injustice and risk to viability of fishers'livelihoods and local economy, cheapestoption, rather than best environmentaloption.

Direct and indirect impacts on commer-cial fish species and habitats and loss offishing area.

� Commercial fishers� Local community

activists

Peer reviewed independent sciencemost trusted. Skeptical of sciencecommissioned by Ports Corporationand government.

“Dredging spoil from Abbot Point on tothe GBR will turn multi-million-dollar-a-year fishing grounds into a desolate was-teland (Commercial Fisherman, Towns-ville Bulletin, 30 Jan).”“Anywhere they drop the spoil there willbe a problem, because that makes thewater cloudy and you cannot catchSpanish mackerel in cloudy water (Com-mercial Fisherman, Bowen Independent,16 Jan 2013).”“Risk the GBR and other industries for thesake of a dying and destructive industry…(North Queensland Conservation CouncilSpokesperson, Bowen Independent, 31July 2013).”

3. Industrialism Disposal of dredge spoil in the GBRMP isthe best environmental option; port devel-opment is necessary for job creation andeconomic growth.

Risk to economic benefits from miningand port developments if approvals aredelayed or not granted. No significant,limited or temporary risks to the GBR.Reactive approach to risk (e.g. riskmanagement).

� Mining industryrepresentatives

� Ports Corporation staff� ‘Right-wing’ politicians

Industry and government commis-sioned science trusted.

“Dredging is not expected to result in anylong-term impacts to the environment atAbbot Point (NQBPC spokesperson, Bo-wen Independent, 16 Jan 2013).”“Much of the debate is misinformed andhas the potential to adversely impact theeconomy of this country and hence futureinvestment in the health and wellbeing ofthe Great Barrier Reef (NQBPC, BowenIndependent, 12 Jul)”“Disposal of the dredge material offshoreoffers the best environmental outcome(NQBPC Spokesperson, Townsville Bulle-tin, 2 Jul 2014).”

A.J.Lankester

etal./

Marine

Policy60

(2015)149

–161154

“Propon

ents

werereally

“onakn

ifeed

ge”

interm

sof

themon

eythey

werepre-

pared

toinve

stin

theproject…

disposing

ofthesoilon

shorewou

ldco

stan

esti-

mated

$400millionve

rsus$3

0millionfor

offshoredisposal

(NQBPC

Spok

esperson,

TownsvilleBulle

tin,6

July

2013

).”

4.Eq

uilibrium

Dredgingnecessary

forecon

omic

dev

elop

-men

tbu

tnee

dssu

stainab

leman

agem

ent

andprecaution

aryap

proach,b

estop

tion

istheleasten

vironmen

tally

riskyon

e.

Directim

pacts

onintrinsicva

lues,e

cono-

myan

decosystem

services

(tou

rism

,fish

ing).P

roactive

(precaution

ary)

ap-

proachto

risk.

�Com

munitymem

bers

�‘Left-wing’

politicians

�Com

mercial

fish

ers

�Ed

itors

�To

urism

industry

mem

bers

�Scientists

Indep

enden

tscientificev

iden

cenee

ded

andtrusted

.“O

ntheon

ehan

dtheco

alindustry

isex

trem

elyim

portantto

theecon

omyof

Quee

nslan

d.O

ntheother

han

dnoon

ewan

tsto

seetheGBRdam

aged

(Tou

rist

Operator,S

unsh

ineCoa

stDaily,F

eb7

2014

).”“Thetrickwill

been

suringwege

tthe

balance

betw

eenecon

omicsan

dtheen

-vironmen

tjust

righ

t(Editor,T

heDaily

Mercu

ry,5

Jan20

13).”

“Wenee

dto

ensu

rethat

weprotect

the

$6billion

aye

arreef

tourism

industry;

thisindustry

mea

ns60

,000jobs

alon

gthe

Quee

nslan

dco

ast(Com

munityMem

ber,

TheDaily

Mercu

ry,1

3July

2013

).”

“Ithinktheresh

ould

hav

ebe

enaland-

baseddumpingop

tion

(GBRMPA

Spok

es-

person,T

ownsvilleBulle

tin8Fe

b20

14).”

A.J. Lankester et al. / Marine Policy 60 (2015) 149–161 155

interstate and national sources through the time period, especiallyfor August 2013, December 2013 and February 2014.

4.2. Themes

Four main themes representing different perceptions of risk inrelation to the disposal of dredge spoil in the GBRMP were iden-tified in articles for the five critical discourse moment months(Table 1). Some themes are overlapping in their beliefs and argu-ments (i.e. the themes are not mutually exclusive). In all thethemes, ‘risk’ is mainly communicated implicitly in the sense ofadverse impacts in the future, ‘danger’ and ‘putting’ the reef orsomething else (e.g. livelihoods, economies, and industries) at risk.

1.

The Environmental Disaster theme reflects eco-centric values, adeep ecology philosophy and discourses such as ecologicalmodernization and ecologically sustainable development. Keyactors linked in the media to environmental disaster narrativeswere conservationists, community activists and politiciansfrom the Australian Green Party. The dredge spoil proposal, inconjunction to further port expansions along the Queenslandcoast and increased shipping activity, was depicted as beingperceived as the biggest ‘new threat’ to the GBR. The languageused was often fear-based and ‘risk’ is mainly framed in thesense of implicit risks (e.g. “…turn the reef into a rubbish dumpfor dredge spoil” and “threaten feeding and breeding groundfor vulnerable species”). Actors' beliefs represented by themedia included: direct, indirect and cumulative impacts oncoral reef, marine food chain and feeding and breeding habitats(e.g. sea grass, and benthic) of vulnerable species, mud scallopand hermit crab due to sediment plumes from the dredge spoildisposal; and, the dredge spoil disposal ‘putting at risk’ theWorld Heritage Status of the reef (e.g. “Why risk damage to aninternational icon like the GBR?”) and, to a lesser extent, theeconomic viability of tourism and fishing industries. In high-lighting the argument that it is not worth risking the reef foreconomically uncertain or unviable mining and port develop-ments, there was often reference in the articles to figures thatshow the contribution tourism and fishing industries make tothe economy and occasional reference to figures that showreductions in coal prices and high production costs of devel-opments (e.g. “… a healthy reef actually creates roughly 35,000more jobs than the mining industry, with 63,000 jobs directlyattributable to a thriving reef.”). Media selected comments byactors made comparisons to the impacts on the GBR fromdredging at Curtis Island by the Gladstone Ports Corporation;stated opposition to any dredging in the GBRWHA; advocated aprecautionary approach; gave authority to independent peer-reviewed science; revealed a deep distrust of environmentalstudies and monitoring commissioned by the Ports Corporationand Governments; and, purported that the dredge spoil pro-posal is an economically-driven decision (i.e. the lowest-costoption). The media portrayed a general belief that political andeconomic decisions are heavily influenced by the short-terminterests of mining companies (e.g. “putting short-term profitsbefore the reef’s long-term health”); that humans need to curbreliance on fossil fuels and transform to an economy based onrenewable energy; and, that large-scale coal mining will lead tosignificant increases in carbon emissions and climate changerelated impacts.

2.

The Socio-economic Disaster theme was aligned with livelihoodvalues and concepts such as social equity, stewardship andsocial-economic sustainability. Commercial fishers, tourismoperators and community activists were identified in the mediasources as the key actors associated with this perception of risk.The main depicted perspective of these actors was that port

A.J. Lankester et al. / Marine Policy 60 (2015) 149–161156

development is important, but disposal of dredge spoil in theGBR would ‘put at risk’ the viability of the fishing and tourismindustries, fishers' and tourism operators livelihoods and localeconomies due to direct and indirect impacts on marine speciesand habitat and loss of fishing area (e.g. “…dredging spoil fromAbbot Point on to the GBR will turn multi-million-dollar-a-yearfishing grounds into a desolate wasteland.”). Some articlesquoted actors' references to the contribution of the fishing andtourism industries to the economy (e.g. “any impact on the reefcould risk the state’s $22billion tourism industry and more than136,000 jobs”). Like the Environmental Disaster theme, themedia highlighted actors' concern for impacts on commercialfish species and marine species habitat from dredging similarto the impacts from dredging at Curtis Island, Gladstone. Themedia revealed a belief that economic and port development isimportant, but that a strong economy based on existing reefbased industries (e.g. fisheries and tourism) can exist by de-veloping more sustainable industries and pursuing other op-tions such as land based dredge spoil disposal (e.g. “…risk theGBR and other industries for the sake of a dying and destructiveindustry…”). Like the Environmental Disaster theme, the mediashowed that actors give authority to independent peer-re-viewed science, were not confident in an industry-led waterquality monitoring program and believe that the dredge spoilproposal was driven by economic motives rather than social-environmental evidence.

3.

Fig. 4. The dominant themes in articles discussing the disposal of dredge spoil in

The Industrialism theme was the most divergent from otherthemes, especially the Environmental Disaster theme. Key actorsidentified by the media were mining industry representatives,Ports Corporation staff and ‘right-wing’ politicians. The princi-ple of economic rationalism dominated quotes selected by themedia and represented the perspective that economic growthis paramount and the environment is utility value for humans.Other media depicted beliefs in this theme include: societyneeds coal-generated electricity and fossil fuels; port develop-ment and expansion is necessary to cater for increases in coalmining and, thus, economic growth and job creation; the pro-posal to dispose of dredge spoil in the GBRMP will not result inany significant or long-term impacts to the GBR, its habitatsand animals (e.g. “Dredging is not expected to result in anylong-term impacts to the environment at Abbot Point.”); and,dredge spoil disposal in the GBRMP is the best environmentaland most economically viable option (e.g. “… disposal of thedredge material offshore offers the best environmental out-come.”). The media revealed actors' references to the amount ofmoney that coal mining has and will, with the Galilee Basindevelopments, contribute to the economy. The word ‘risk’ wascommunicated in terms of mitigating risk or taking a riskmanagement approach (i.e. reactive), rather than avoidingrisks. Articles also highlighted the belief that delays to, andnon-granting of approvals, were ‘putting at risk’ the economicbenefits for Australia from mining and port developments (e.g.“Debate about the health of the reef is misinformed andthreatens future investment in the country”). In representingthe perception that dredging is not a threat to the GBR, mainthreats to the GBR were cited by the media as being the CrownOf Thorns, poor water quality (from agricultural pollution andcoastal development, including ports) and storm damage. Ac-tors were represented as giving authority on the likely impactsto the GBR from the disposal of dredge spoil to government andPorts Corporation commissioned science; and, not believingthat dredging caused fish disease problems at Port Curtis,Gladstone. The media revealed that actors in this theme believethat claims by conservationists on the dredging issue are“misleading”, “myths” and “hysterical”.

the GBRMP for the critical discourse moment months.

4. The Equilibrium theme was associated with principles such as

sustainable development and ‘limits to growth’. It was the‘middle position’ between Industrialism and EnvironmentalDisaster themes, which were both perceived (by actors linkedto this theme) to contain elements of propaganda. Key actorsidentified by the media were community members, ‘left-wing’politicians, tourist industry members, scientists and commer-cial fishers. Dredging was depicted as being necessary foreconomic development, but needs to be managed sustainablythrough a precautionary approach in order to avoid damage tothe GBR (e.g. “The trick will be ensuring we get the balancebetween economics and the environment just right”). ‘Risk’was communicated in the context of assessing different options(e.g. extended jetty, trestle wharfs, and land disposal of dredgespoil) and choosing the option that avoids risk to the GBR. Themedia revealed actors' consideration of other options such asonshore dredge spoil disposal. The media depicted actors'concern for cumulative impacts with dredging done in con-junction to other activities and events (e.g. agricultural run-offand floods); harm to ecosystem services and intrinsic values ofthe GBR; and ‘putting at risk’ the economic viability of tourismand fishing industries. Figures for the economic value of thetourism and fishing industries ware quoted (e.g. “we need toensure that we protect the $6 billion a year reef tourism in-dustry…this industry means 60,000 jobs along the Queenslandcoast.”). The media also showed actors' support for a diverseand sustainable economy, which prevents climate change andprotects the long-term sustainability of the environment andnatural resources for a range of industries.

4.3. Changes in themes over time

The Environmental Disaster theme was the most prominent ofall themes in articles for all critical discourse moment months(Fig. 4). The Socio-economic Disaster theme was prominent inJanuary 2013, but less present in other critical discourse months.In January and July 2013 the Socio-economic Disaster theme wasfocused on fishers' livelihoods and in December 2013 and January2014 the focus was on the on the livelihoods of state-wide tourismoperators. By contrast, the Equilibrium theme became more pro-minent over time. The Industrialism theme was the least promi-nent in in January 2013 and February 2014, second most promi-nent theme in the middle period (July 2013), and second lastprominent in December 2013 and January 2014.

Fig. 5. Representation of different actors in articles discussing dredge disposal inthe GBRMP for January 2013.

A.J. Lankester et al. / Marine Policy 60 (2015) 149–161 157

4.4. Changes in actors over time

Conservation group and Ports Corporation spokespeople hadhigh representation in articles for all critical discourse momentmonths: January 2013, July 2013, December 2013, January 2014and February 2014. ‘Conservationists’ included spokespeople fromnational and global groups (e.g. World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeaceand the Australian Marine Conservation Group) and regionalgroups (e.g. North Queensland Conservation Council and MackayConservation Council). Commercial fishers and local action groupspokespeople decreased in representation in articles over thethree months, while Federal Government ministers, GBRMPAscientists2 and Tourist Industry spokespeople became more pro-minent in July 2013, December 2013, January 2014 and February2014. Coal Industry, United Nations and Greens Party spokes-people and State Government ministers had a consistent and lowto moderate presence across months. There was a marked increasein the diversity of actors over the three months. For example,spokespeople from the Queensland Resource Council, Get Upmovement3 Agricultural Industry and Local Business re-presentatives became obvious in articles in the later months(Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9).

Fig. 6. Representation of different actors in articles discussing dredge disposal inthe GBRMP for July 2013.

Fig. 7. Representation of different actors in articles discussing dredge disposal inthe GBRMP for December 2013.

5. Discussion

The print media's reporting of the disposal of dredge spoil inthe GBRMP at Abbot Point demonstrates the ways the mediaregulated visibility of perspectives of risk associated with the is-sue. Results of the analysis show that there were four main themesrepresenting different perceptions of risk. In the articles analyzed,‘risk’ was mainly communicated in the sense of implicit risk (e.g.adverse impacts). The Environmental Disaster theme, linked to eco-centric values and conservationist actors, was the most salient inarticles over time. This shows the appeal to media of languagebased on fear and adversity [41], but may also show how the issueresonates with deeply held beliefs concerning the ethics (i.e. cul-turally unacceptability) of sea dumping, similar to the 1995 RoyalShell Oil companies' plan to dispose of the Brent Spar oil rig intothe North Sea [13]. The Equilibrium theme, linked to a range ofdifferent actors, reflected values around sustainable developmentand the precautionary principle and increased in prominence inarticles over time. The Industrialism theme, linked to Ports Cor-poration and mining industry actors, reflected principles of eco-nomic rationalism, was positioned in opposition to the Environ-mental Disaster theme and was prominent in July 2013, but lessprominent in all other periods. This positioning was effective inconstructing controversy around the issue and thus giving it ‘newsvalue’. The Industrialism theme also shifted focus away from theGBR as the central node in the argument and framed risk relativeto the negative economic implications of not proceeding withdredging at Abbot Point. The Socio-economic Disaster theme, linkedto commercial fishers, tourism operators and local activists, em-phasized societal and livelihood risks of the dredge spoil issue.This social disaster theme was prominent in articles when theproposal was announced in January 2013 (with mainly local cov-erage of the issue and a focus on fishers' livelihoods), surfacedmore noticeably again in December 2013 and January 2014 (with afocus on state-wide tourism operators' livelihoods) but faded inprominence by February 2014 (with more nationwide coverage).Over time, the media representation of the issue changed from a

2 ‘Scientists’ included spokespeople from James Cook University and TheAustralian Institute of Marine Science.

3 An independent, grassroots, community advocacy organization (https://www.getup.org.au/about).

focus on local concerns and risk to local livelihoods to a widerfocus on the future of the GBR in general and risks to the GBR, itsWorld Heritage Status and tourism operators' livelihoods fromincreased dredging for port development, shipping and climatechange due to an expanding thermal coal mining industry.

The disposal of dredge spoil in the GBR at Abbot Point wasclearly the ‘issue’ in the issue attention cycle for media on the GBR

Fig. 8. Representation of different actors in articles discussing dredge disposal in the GBRMP for January 2014.

Fig. 9. Representation of different actors in articles discussing dredge disposal in the GBRMP for February 2014.

A.J. Lankester et al. / Marine Policy 60 (2015) 149–161158

during January 2013–February 2014, with the issue dominatingclose to a quarter (20.5%) of all the GBR articles collected over thistime. There are many social, ethical, esthetic and interrelated as-pects that could have made the issue appealing to the media. Themedia attention given to the issue reflects the human interest,conflict and controversy aspects of the issue that resonated withnews values [42]. The amount of coverage given to the Abbot Pointdredge spoil issue raised the visibility of the issue and the En-vironmental Disaster narrative in the public arena. Increased cov-erage of an environmental issue is believed to make risks salient,create increased opposition to risky proposals and a heightenedfear of environmental hazards [43]. While an analysis of ‘newmedia’was not an objective of this paper, it would be remiss not toacknowledge its potential role in framing discussions and shapingthe Abbot Point proposals and decisions. In particular, many arti-cles on the Abbot Point issue were published in the online aca-demic and research-focused media outlet The Conversation. In fu-ture, it would be useful to give further consideration to the in-fluence of online media in contributing to agenda setting in mainprint media sources and as an avenue for scientific experts to gettheir case heard in the mainstream media. Further, the timing ofthe dredge spoil proposal with the impending UNESCO decision onwhether or not the GBR will be put on the World Heritage ‘indanger’ list, combined with reports of declining reef health [28–44], helped increase the issue’s coverage and make it an ‘iconic’ orsymbolic issue for the future of the GBR.

The media played an important role in shaping and

maintaining the controversy of the dredge spoil issue; an issue thegeneral Australian public did not have everyday experience withand were, therefore, largely reliant on mass media for informationand interpretation [45]. Articles on the issue regularly cast theIndustrialism theme as being in opposition to the Environmentaland Socioeconomic Disaster themes, thus highlighting contention.The narratives of risk in the Environmental Disaster theme alsostrongly legitimized morals and values (e.g. “short-term profitsbefore the reef's long-term health”). Narratives that espousestrongly held beliefs and morals tend to receive strong media at-tention [46]. The prominence given to the Environmental Disastertheme in articles can also be explained by the ‘culture of fear’,which the media helps generate for news value [41]. Controversywas further cultivated in articles by emphasizing a proactive po-sition (e.g. precautionary principle) for the Environmental andEquilibrium themes and reactive position (e.g. risk management)for the Industrialism theme, which is also seen in Sonnet's [12]study of media on climate risk. The constant, high and opposi-tional representation of spokespeople from the Ports Corporationand conservation groups also shows the positioning of actors bythe media to highlight and maintain sensation or drama. Theseresults compare with the conclusion by others that news mediareport more extensively on organizations that have greater capa-city, address economic and social dimensions of the environmentand have skillful public relations campaigns [13–47].

In the articles analyzed there was mainly an implicit risk nar-rative of adverse impacts to the GBR, industries, communities and

A.J. Lankester et al. / Marine Policy 60 (2015) 149–161 159

people that use the GBR for livelihood; rather than explicit riskdiscussing the opportunity and real numerical costs and likelyenvironmental outcomes of different options. In the context ofcommunicating climate change to the public, it is increasinglyargued that using the language of explicit risk could be a moresophisticated, suitable and helpful lens in which to analyze theproblem and move the public debate towards timely decision-making and action rather than prolonged uncertainty [22–38]. Inthe case of the print media on the dredge spoil issue for the fivecritical discourse moment months (Jan 13, Jul 13, Dec 13, Jan 14and Feb 14) there was some reporting in the Environmental andSocio-economic Disaster themes of figures comparing the economiccontributions of the tourism, fishing (in the GBR) and mining in-dustries to the Queensland and Australian economy. There was noreference by the media in the critical discourse moment months tofigures from studies that show the numerical likelihood of adverseoutcomes for coral and other marine life from different sedimentlevels. The media may have chosen not to report on results fromscientific studies to accentuate a fear-based disaster narrative;however, public understanding of the issue may have been moreeffective if actors had put more emphasis on communicating theexplicit risks (or not) to the GBR from the dredge spoil proposal(i.e. by comparing known effects to coral, benthic and sea grasshabitats and fisheries from dredging and dredge spoil [e.g. 48–50].More attention given to describing details of the likely social andenvironmental outcomes of different options for dredge spoildisposal, especially when the debate was taking shape, could haveimproved public understanding of the issue.

Our results show that representation of risk and coverage of thedredge spoil issue in the print media changed in focus from localto national over time; confirming the importance of spatially-sensitive (i.e. different geographic scales) media analysis forshowing different representations of reality [21]. Studies of localversus national coverage of an issue have found that coverage inlocal sources where the issue poses the most ‘risk’ will be greaterthan in national sources [e.g. 51]. However, our study shows that,even though the ‘risk’ was posed to the GBR in North Queensland,the coverage and debate broadened to a national focus over time.These results show the power of symbols in framing policy de-bates, which have served in this case to expand the scope of thepolicy issue [52]. The Abbot Point dredge spoil issue gained pro-minence over time to become symbolic in framing debate aroundthe wider threat to the GBR, tourism and its World Heritage status,from port developments and increased shipping driven by an ex-panding coal industry. Over time, the media debate on the dredgespoil issue became more focused on risk to a national icon ratherthan risk to local environments and livelihoods, which also shiftedthe coverage from mainly local to national media sources. TheEquilibrium theme becoming more prominent over time may alsoreflect the broadening of the issue from a local to national focus,thus, taking in a wider range of differently owned newspapers (e.g.Fairfax and News Limited papers), perspectives and communityviews.

The increase in actor diversity and regional, federal and globalactors (e.g. GBRMPA, UNESCO), and the decrease in local actors(e.g. local community activists and fishers), reveals how the issuebroadened in focus from local to national over time. There werealso more lobbyists (e.g. QRC, Get Up movement) represented inarticles as the issue broadened. The increase in diversity of actorsshows how the dredge spoil issue became an issue with ‘carryingcapacity’: a symbol for a wider range of concerns (e.g. impacts onthe GBR and tourism from increased coal mining activity and cli-mate change) with which the public can identify [13]. Print mediasources also diversified as the issue broadened geographically totake in sources owned by the three main Australian media cor-porations: Fairfax, News Limited and APN (Appendix 1A).

Therefore, the ‘gatekeeping’ of News Limited interests such as bigbusiness [53] may have been less effective over time as differentsources and voices were accessed to cover the issue.

Ultimately the Abbot Point dredging issue has become sig-nificant in the GBR, and globally, as a focusing event that drawsattention to a problem [54] and contributes to a broader debate, inthis case around competing paradigms of economic developmentacross all spatial scales, from local to global [55]. This was enabledby the sustained media attention given to this issue over theperiod in which these events unfolded, punctuated by the criticaldiscourse moments.

6. Conclusion

The media has played a major role in bringing to the publicarena the contested views of different actors and shaping thedebate and public perceptions of risk to the GBR and the peoplewho use and value the GBR in relation to dredging for port ex-pansion at Abbot Point. This paper explored print media re-presentations of perceptions of risk from the disposal of dredgespoil in the Marine Park at Abbot Point between January 2013 andFebruary 2014. Media analysis sought to address the questions:Who is represented? How have the claims and views of differentsocial actors been reconstructed in the media? How, if at all, hasmedia discourse on the issue changed over time? The results ofour analysis show that four main perspectives of risk, based ondifferent ideas and of nature conservation and economic devel-opment, were represented in articles. The Abbot Point dredgingissue was a main focus for media reporting on the GBR from Jan2013 to February 2014. Over time, the issue went from beingcovered by mainly local sources with a focus on risk to local li-velihoods and environments to being covered by sourcesthroughout Australia with a focus on risk to the future of the GBRand its World Heritage Status and tourism from an expandingthermal coal mining industry. The Environmental Disaster themehad a dominant and increasing presence in articles leading up toand after the final approvals, which may have had an influence onthe recent decision by the Queensland Government to endorseland based disposal of the dredge spoil: a decision that has alsosparked controversy due to reports by experts of high risks towetland species from loss of a key wetland area [56,57]. This paperprovides policy makers with an understanding of how the mediamediates and communicates different perceptions of risk, andassociates those risk perceptions with different types of actors. Italso highlights the importance of critical events in influencing theextent to which, and how, the media reports on risks. Under-standing how media represents risks is important because, asprevious studies have shown, e.g. [58], the media plays an im-portant role in setting the agenda and influencing public debatesand responses to issues. Lessons for policy makers and actors in-clude recognizing the role of the media in providing the publicwith selected information on an issue in which they have littledirect experience; and, the potential benefits of working closewith media using language that describes the explicit socio-eco-nomic and environmental risks of different options based on solidevidence and examples.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the Social and EconomicLong Term Monitoring Program (SELTMP) for supporting the col-laboration to generate this manuscript and the Wulgurukaba andBindal Traditional Owners who own the land on which this

A.J. Lankester et al. / Marine Policy 60 (2015) 149–161160

manuscript was written. We are also very grateful to SamanthaStone-Jovicich and Jon Brodie for constructive comments on anearlier draft of the manuscript.

See Appenix table here

Table A1

Appendix A1List of print media and their ownership from different geographical areas in Australia.

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd New Limited Other APN Newspapers Pty Ltd

Local The North Queensland Register (Townsville) The Advocate (Ayr) The Observer (Gladstone)Bowen Independent News Mail BundabergTownsville Bulletin The Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton)

Daily Mercury (Mackay)Regional The Courier Mail (Brisbane) Sunshine Coast Daily (Maroochydore)

The Sunday Mail (Brisbane)The Cairns PostThe Cairns SunGold Coast BulletinPort Douglas and Mossman Gazette

Interstate The Age (Melbourne) The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) Daily Examiner (Grafton)The Sydney Morning Herald Sunday telegraph The Northern Star (Lismore)The Illawarra Mercury The Advertiser (Adelaide)The Newcastle Herald The Herald SunThe Canberra Times The Sunday Herald SunThe Bendigo Advertiser The Mercury (Hobart)The Ballarat Courier The Sunday TasmanianThe Daily Advertiser (Wagga Wagga) Sunday Territorian (Darwin)The Central Coast Herald (NSW) Sunday Times (Perth)The Northern Daily Leader (Tamworth) Hornsby and Upper North Shore Advocate

Inner West Courier (Campbelltown)The Northern Territory NewsThe Geelong Advertiser

National The Australian AustralianWeekend Australian Associated Press Pty Ltd

References

[1] N. Brooks, Vulnerability, Risk and Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework, TyndallCentre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, UK (2003), p. 20.

[2] D. Nelkin, Communicating technological risk: the social construction of risk per-ception, Ann. Rev. Public Health 10 (1989) 95–113.

[3] K. Dake, Orientating dispositions in the perceptions of risk: an analysis of con-temporary worldviews and cultural biases, J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 22 (1991) 61–82.

[4] K. Dake, Myths of nature: culture and the social construction of risk, J. Soc. Issues 48(1992) 21–37.

[5] E. Weber, Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk:why global warming does not scare us (yet), Clim. Change 77 (2006) 103–120.

[6] J. Wolf, Susanne C. Moser, Individual understandings, perceptions and engagementwith climate change: insights from in-depth studies across the world, WIREs Clim.Chang. 2 (2011) 547–569.

[7] D.M. Kahan, H. Jenkins-Smith, D. Braman, Cultural cognition of scientific consensus,J. Risk Res. 14 (2011) 147–174.

[8] C.E. Colten, A.R. Sumpter, Social memory and resilience in New Orleans, Nat. Ha-zards 48 (2009) 355–364.

[9] E.L. Bohensky, A.M. Leitch, Framing the flood: a media analysis of themes of resi-lience in the 2011 Brisbane flood, Reg. Environ. Chang. 14 (2) (2014) 475–488.

[10] B. Orbist, C. Pfeiffer, R. Henley, Multi-layered social resilience: a new approach inmitigation research, Prog. Dev. Stud. 10 (4) (2010) 283–293.

[11] D.M. White, The “gate-keeper”: a case study in the selection of news, J. Q. 27 (1950)383–390.

[12] J. Sonnett, Climates of risk: a field analysis of global climate change in US mediadiscourse, 1997–2004, Public Underst. Sci. 19 (6) (2010) 698–716.

[13] A. Anderson, Media, Culture and the Environment, UCL Press Limited, London, 1997.[14] S. Allan, B. Adam, C. Carter, Environmental Risks and the Media, Routledge, London,

2000.[15] U. Beck, Climate for change, or how to create a green modernity? Theory Cult. Soc.

27 (2–3) (2010) 254–266.[16] R. Lidskog, U. Olausson, To spray or not to spray: the discursive construction of

contested environmental issues in the news media, Discourse Context Media 2(2013) 123–130.

[17] M.T. Boykoff, Media discourse on the climate slowdown, Nat. Clim. Chang. 4 (2014)156–158.

[18] A. Leiserowitz, Climate change risk perception and policy preferences, Clim. Chang.77 (2006) 45–72.

[19] S.J. O’Neill, et al., On the use of imagery for climate change engagement, Glob. En-viron. Chang. 23 (2013) 413–421.

[20] M. Parenti, Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media, St. Martin’s Press, NewYork, 1993.

[21] A. Carvalho, Discourse analysis and media texts: a critical reading of analytical tools,in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic and Methodology' RC 33Meeting, October 3–6 2000, International Sociology Association, Koln.

[22] L. McGaurr, L. Lester, J. Painter, Risk, uncertainty and opportunity in climate changecoverage: Australia compared, Aust. Journal. Rev. 35 (2) (2013) 21–33.

[23] Risky business, The economic risks of climate change in the United States: A climaterisk assessment for the United States, 2014, Risky Business Project; New York, U.S.

[24] A. Carvalho, J. Burgess, Cultural circuits of climate change in U.K. broadsheetnewspapers, 1985–2003, Risk Anal. 25 (6) (2005) 1457–1469.

[25] W.A. Gamson, A. Modigliana, Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power:a constructionist approach, Am. J. Sociol. 5 (1) (1989) 1–37.

[26] Deloitte Access Economics, Economic contribution of the Great Barrier Reef, GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, 2013.

[27] N. Stoeckl, et al., A new approach to the problem of overlapping values: a case studyin Australia's Great Barrier Reef, Ecosyst. Serv. 10 (2014) 61–78.

[28] GBRMPA, Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment, Great Barrier Reef MarinePark Authority, Townsville, 2014.

[29] J. Brodie, J. Waterhouse, A critical review of environmental management of the ‘notso Great’ Barrier Reef, Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 104 (2012) 1–22.

[30] J. Brodie, Dredging the Great Barrier Reef: use and misuse of science, Estuar.Coast. Shelf Sci. 142 (2014) 1–3.

[31] J. Minifie, et al., The Mining Boom: Impacts and Prospects, Grattan Institute, Carlton,Australia (2013), p. 54.

[32] J. Norrie, UNESCO's Great Barrier Reef Report: Experts Respond. 4 June 2012.[33] W. Rollo. and staff Carmichael coal and rail project: Queensland mine gets Federal

Government Approval. Updated 29 July 2014.[34] R. Harding-Smith, Media Ownership and Regulation in Australia: Centre for Policy

A.J. Lankester et al. / Marine Policy 60 (2015) 149–161 161

Development Issue Brief, Centre for Policy Development, Sydney, 2011.[35] W. Bacon, Sceptical Climate Part 2: Climate Science in Australian Newspapers, The

Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, Sydney, 2013.[36] P. Chilton, Critical discourse moments and critical discourse analysis: towards a

methodology, Working Paper: University of California Institute of Global Conflictand Cooperation; Discourse, Peace, Security and International Society, 1987.

[37] G.W. Ryan, R. Bernard, Data management and analysis methods, in: N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Second Edition, Sage Publica-tions Inc., Thousand Oaks, California, 2000, pp. 769–802.

[38] J. Painter, Climate Change in the Media: Reporting Risk and Uncertainty, I.B.Tauris &Co. Ltd, London, 2013.

[39] J.S. Dryzek, The Politics of the Earth, second edition,. Oxford University Press, Ox-ford, 2005.

[40] H. Doulton, K. Brown, Ten years to prevent catastrophe? Discourses of climatechange and international development in the UK press, Glob. Environ. Chang. 19(2009) 191–202.

[41] B. Glassner, The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things,Basic Books, New York, NY, 1999.

[42] P.J. Shoemaker, S.D. Reese, Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on MassMedia Content, Longman Publishers USA, New York, 1996.

[43] A. Mazur, J. Lee, Sounding the global alarm: environmental issues in the US nationalnews, Soc. Stud. Sci. 23 (4) (1993) 681–720.

[44] GBRMPA, The Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014, Commonwealth of Australia(Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority), Townsville, 2014.

[45] J.B. Hester, R. Gibson, The agenda-setting function of national versus local media: atime-series analysis for the issue of same-sex marriage, Mass Commun. Soc. 10 (3)(2007) 299–317.

[46] P. Campbell, Boundaries and risk: media framing of assisted reproductive technol-ogies and older mothers, Soc. Sci. Med. 72 (2011) 265–272.

[47] K.T. Andrews, N. Caren, Making the news: movement organizations, media

attention, and the public agenda, Am. Sociol. Rev. 75 (6) (2010) 841–866.[48] P.L.A. Erftemeijer, R.R. Robin Lewis III, Environmental impacts of dredging on sea-

grasses: a review, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 52 (2006) 1553–1572.[49] S.G. Bolam, H.L. Rees, Minimizing impacts of maintenance dredged material dis-

posal in the coastal environment: a habitat approach, Environ. Manag. 32 (2) (2003)171–188.

[50] J.F. Pollock, et al., Sediment and turbidity associated with offshore dredging increasecoral disease prevalence on nearby reefs, PLos One 9 (7) (2014) e102498.

[51] R. Sakurai, S.K. Jacobson, J.S. Carlton, Media coverage of management of the blackbear Ursus thibetanus in Japan. Oryx. 47, 4, 519–525.

[52] E.A. Shanahan, M.K. McBeth, P.L. Hathaway, Conduit or contributor? The role ofmedia in policy change theory, Policy Sci. 41 (2008) 115–138.

[53] M. Pusey, Media ownership matters: why politicians need to take on proprietors,Conversation. September 19 (2011), https://theconversation.com/media-ownership-matters-why-politicians-need-to-take-on-proprietors-3425.

[54] J.W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, HarperCollins CollegePublishers, New York, 1995.

[55] R. Costanza, et al., Time to leave GDP behind, Nat. Clim. Chang. 505 (2014) 283–285.[56] Australian Broadcasting Corporation News. Abbot Point dredging: Spoil to be

dumped on land, not in Great Barrier Reef waters. 8 September 2014 9 October2014]; Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-08/abbot-point-dredge-material-to-be-dumped-inland/5727960.

[57] Australian Broadcasting Corporation News. Abbot Point dredge spoil dump site‘worst possible’ for environment, documents show. 24th December 2014–January27th 2015]; Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-23/abbot-point-dredge-dump-site-worst-possible-for-environment/5986084.

[58] V. Price, D. Tewksbury, E. Powers, Switching trains of thought, Commun. Res. 24 (5)(1997) 481–506.