The Pacific Ocean is becoming valuable real estate. Fights over this space resemble those of the gold rush. Decision makers require data to integrate new uses (wave energy) with existing uses (commercial/recreational). It is vital to have the best data available and implement the best management practices concerning the environmental dimension. Yet, permitting processes rarely fail on technical or natural science grounds; rather, they fail because of lack of attention to the human dimension. Legislators and resource managers need to understand socioeconomic and sociopolitical perceptions. This knowledge is crucial for allowing citizens to determine their interests and civic opportunities. An informed and engaged public is essential to progress on environmental protection and sustainable development. It is important to assess the scope and depth of policy-relevant knowledge among stakeholders and the public, to learn where they acquire their information, and to flesh out the link between policy-relevant knowledge and understanding/acceptance of wave energy generation. By specifying the connection between knowledge holding and support for wave energy, purposeful public education and information dissemination efforts could be targeted effectively, and policy processes could be designed to maximize policy input and meet citizen and community concerns. This research program looked at wave energy in terms of political/regulatory processes and environmental, social, and economic sustainability and acceptability.

Conway, F., J. Stevenson, D. Hunter, M. Stefanovich, H. Campbell, Z. Covell, and Y. Yin. 2010. Ocean space, ocean place: The human dimensions of wave energy in Oregon. Oceanography 23(2):82–91, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2010.47.

AEA. 2006. Review and Analysis of Ocean Energy Systems Development and Supporting Policies: A Report by AEA Energy & Environment on the Behalf of Sustainable Energy Ireland for the IEA’s Implementing Agreement on Ocean Energy Systems, 59 pp. Available online at: http://www.iea-oceans.org/_fich/6/Review_Policies_on_OES_2.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010).
1. Bennett, J.W. 1996. Human Ecology as Human Behavior: Essays in Environmental and Development Anthropology, 1^st ed. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 387 pp.
2. Daigle, D. 2003. Involving the public in coastal conservation: Obstacles and opportunities. Pp. 230–238 in Values at Sea: Ethics for the Marine Environment. D. Dallmeyer, ed., University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
3. Delli Carpini, M., and S. Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 416 pp.
4. Gramling, R., and W. Freudenburg. 1992. Opportunity-threat, development, and adaptation: Toward a comprehensive framework for social impact assessment. Rural Sociology 57:216–234.
5. Lee, T.R. 1987. The public’s view of the costs and benefits of alternative energy-systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section B-Biological Sciences 92:159–171.
6. Huang, M.-Y., A.R.R. Janaki, D.R. Carter, and M.H. Langholtz. 2007. Is the choice of renewable portfolio standards random? Energy Policy 35:5,571–5,575.
7. Kulongoski, T. 2006. Governor Kulongoski’s Action Plan for Energy. Available online at: http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/sos2006/energy.pdf (accessed March 5, 2008).
8. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Fisheries Economics of the United States 2006. Fisheries economics and sociocultural status and trend series, NOAA Fisheries: Office of Science and Technology. Available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/economics_communities.html (accessed July 9, 2009).
9. ODOE (Oregon Department of Energy). 2007. Summary of Energy Legislation Passed by the 2007 Session. Available online at: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/docs/Bill_Passed_Summary.pdf (accessed March 5, 2008).
10. ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2008. Estimated value ($), at the fishermen’s level, of commercial fish and shellfish landings by port in Oregon, 2008. Available online at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/commercial/landing_stats/2008AnnRep/index2008.asp (accessed May 13, 2009).
11. Oregon.Gov. 2008. Ocean Wave Energy Development. Available online at: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Hydro/Ocean_Wave.shtml (accessed March 1, 2009).
12. Simon, C.A. 2007. Alternative Energy: Political, Economic, and Social Feasibility. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD, 256 pp.
13. Stone, D.L., A.K. Harding, B.K. Hope, and S. Slaugther-Mason. 2008. Exposure assessment and risk of gastrointestinal illness among surfers. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A 71(24):1,603–1,615.
14. Thomas, K., H.J. Dunster, and C. Green. 1981. Comparative risk perception: How the public perceives the risks and benefits of energy systems (and discussion). Proceedings of the Royal Society A 376:35–50, doi:10.1098/rspa.1981.0074.
15. United Nations. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. General Assembly Resolution 42/187, 11 December 1987. Available online at: http://www.un-documents.net/a42r187.htm (accessed March 3, 2010).

This is an open access article made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format as long as users cite the materials appropriately, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate the changes that were made to the original content. Images, animations, videos, or other third-party material used in articles are included in the Creative Commons license unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If the material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission directly from the license holder to reproduce the material.