Tourism development has been promoted as an alternative livelihood to reduce the dependence of small island communities on declining marine resources. It is often central to emerging agendas around marine planning and the blue economy. However, relatively little is known about how communities perceive tourism development as an alternative and potentially sustainable livelihood in their area and its implications. This qualitative study tracks a governance system in transition and analyzes the factors perceived by stakeholders to be driving and hindering the adoption of tourism-based livelihoods on small islands in UNESCO’s Taka Bonerate Kepulauan Selayar Biosphere Reserve (Indonesia). The findings indicate that, despite a series of tourism-enhancing investments and initiatives and the positive attitudes of local communities towards it, tourism is not a direct route towards sustainability for small island communities. The benefits of tourism are perceived to be unequally distributed. The lack of education and skills limits participation in new job opportunities, and the incentives to continue destructive fishing inhibits livelihood transition to tourism. The article concludes that tourism cannot be assumed to generate simultaneous benefits for conservation and development without more equitable benefit sharing, the meeting of basic needs in communities, and addressing the drivers of unsustainable livelihoods.

Most people believe in human-caused climate change, yet this public consensus can be collectively underestimated ( pluralistic ignorance ). Across two studies using primary data ( n = 3,653 adult participants; 11 countries) and secondary data ( n s = 60,230 and 22,496 adult participants; 55 countries), we tested (a) the generalizability of pluralistic ignorance about climate-change beliefs, (b) the effects of a public-consensus intervention on climate action, and (c) the possibility that cultural tightness-looseness might serve as a country-level predictor of pluralistic ignorance. In Study 1, people across 11 countries underestimated the prevalence of proclimate views by at least 7.5% in Indonesia (90% credible interval, or CrI = [5.0, 10.1]), and up to 20.8% in Brazil (90% CrI = [18.2, 23.4]. Providing information about the actual public consensus on climate change was largely ineffective, except for a slight increase in willingness to express one’s proclimate opinion, δ = 0.05 (90% CrI = [−0.02, 0.11]). In Study 2, pluralistic ignorance about willingness to contribute financially to fight climate change was slightly more pronounced in looser than tighter cultures, highlighting the particular need for pluralistic-ignorance research in these countries.

Annals of Global Health is a peer-reviewed, fully open access, online journal dedicated to publishing high quality articles dedicated to all aspects of global health. The journal's mission is to advance global health, promote research, and foster the prevention and treatment of disease worldwide. Its goals are to improve the health and well-being of all people, advance health equity, and promote wise stewardship of the earth's environment. The latest journal impact factor is 2.90. Annals of Global Health is supported by the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good at Boston College. It was founded in 1934 by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai as the Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine. It is a partner journal of the Consortium of Universities for Global Health. From time to time, Annals of Global Health publishes Special Collections, a series of articles organized around a common theme in global health. Recent Special Collections have included "Local evidence and strategies in addressing NCDs Non-Communicable Diseases in Tanzania", "Universal Health Coverage through Integrated Care", and "The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health". Global health workers interested in developing a Special Collection are strongly encouraged to contact the Managing Editor in advance to discuss the project.