Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:44:03.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Engagement in co-management of marine benthic resources influences environmental perceptions of artisanal fishers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2008

STEFAN GELCICH ,
MICHEL J. KAISER ,
JUAN CARLOS CASTILLA  and
GARETH EDWARDS-JONES
STEFAN GELCICH*
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Studies in Ecology and Biodiversity (CASEB), Facultad de Ciencias Biologicas, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Casilla 114-D, Santiago, Chile
MICHEL J. KAISER
Affiliation:
School of Ocean Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Menai Bridge LL59 5AB, UK
JUAN CARLOS CASTILLA
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Studies in Ecology and Biodiversity (CASEB), Facultad de Ciencias Biologicas, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Casilla 114-D, Santiago, Chile
GARETH EDWARDS-JONES
Affiliation:
School of the Environment and Natural Resources, College of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor LL57 2UW, UK
*
*Correspondence: Dr Stefan Gelcich e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The perceptions of resource users towards any conservation policy can be a major determinant of its success. While co-management policy can enhance the management of fisheries, to date there have been few reports concerning how engagement in co-management regimes may affect fishers' perceptions. This paper assesses the determinants of fishers' environmental perceptions within a co-management regime in Chile. Group meetings and structured questionnaires showed fishers' environmental perceptions were composed of four domains of concern, termed ‘water pollution’, ‘stock conservation’, ‘conservation/profit trade-offs’ and ‘charismatic species’. Fishers' dependence on diving and/or the length of time fishers had engaged with the policy affected their perceptions of each of these domains. Perceptions of the ‘water pollution’ domain were related to length of time fishers had participated in co-management, probably because fishers gained an increased understanding of the market and its need for unpolluted produce. Attitudes towards ‘conservation/profit trade-offs’ tended to become linked to an increasingly conservation-oriented ethic with increasing time of engagement with the policy. Given that the length of time fishers engaged with co-management differentially affected fishers' perceptions of environmental domains of concern, public officials and funding agencies should be careful not to judge co-management prematurely. It takes time to educate participants and overcome distrust. Through co-management processes in Chile, fishers' environmental awareness increased, and sustainable behaviours may consequently increase in the future.

Keywords

attitudescommon pool resourcesconservationfisheriesmarine protected areaspolicy
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 36 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrawal, A. (2005) Environmentality: community, intimate government, and the making of environmental subjects in Kumaon, India. Current Anthropology 46: 161–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botsford, L.W., Castilla, J.C. & Peterson, C.H. (1997) The management of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Science 277: 509–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, R.J.F. (2004) Seeing through the ‘good farmer's’ eyes: towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociologica Ruralis 44: 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castilla, J.C. (1994) The Chilean small scale benthic shellfisheries and the institutionalization of new management practices. Ecological International Bulletin 21: 47–63.Google Scholar
Castilla, J.C. & Defeo, O. (2001) Latin American benthic shellfisheries: emphasis on co-management and experimental practices. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 11: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castilla, J.C. & Defeo, O. (2005) Paradigm shifts needed for world fisheries. Science 309: 1324–1325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castilla, J.C. & Gelcich, S. (2008) The management of the loco (Concholepas concholepas) as a driver for self-governance of small-scale benthic fisheries in Chile. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No.604 (in press).Google Scholar
Castilla, J.C., Gelcich, S. & Defeo, O. (2007) Successes, lessons and projections from experience in marine benthic invertebrate artisanal fisheries in Chile. In: Fisheries Management. Progress Towards Sustainability, ed. McClanahan, T. & Castilla, J.C..Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing: 332 pp.Google Scholar
Castilla, J.C., Manríquez, P., Alvarado, J., Rosson, A., Pino, C., Espóz, C., Soto, R., Oliva, D. & Defeo, O. (1998) Artisanal ‘caletas’ as units of production and co-managers of benthic invertebrates in Chile. In: Proceedings of the North Pacific Symposium on Invertebrate Stock Assessment and Management, ed. Jamieson, G.S. & Campbell, A.. Canadian Special Publication in Fisheries and Aquatic Science 125: 407–413.Google Scholar
Edwards-Jones, G. (2006) Modelling farmer decision making: concepts, challenges and progress. Animal Science 82: 783–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanning, L. (2000) The co-management paradigm: examining criteria for meaningful public involvement. In: Sustainable Marine Resource Management, ed. Mann, E., Chircop, A., McConnell, M. & Morgan, J., 227 pp. Ocean Yearbook 14. Chicago, USA: University Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelcich, S., Edwards-Jones, G., Kaiser, M.J. & Watson, E. (2005 a) Using discourses for policy evaluation: the case of marine common property rights in Chile. Society and Natural Resources 18: 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelcich, S., Edwards-Jones, G. & Kaiser, M.J. (2005 b) Importance of attitudinal differences among artisanal fishers with respect to co-management and conservation of benthic resources. Conservation Biology 19: 865–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelcich, S., Edwards-Jones, G., Kaiser, M.J. & Castilla, J.C. (2006) Co-management policy can reduce resilience in traditionally managed marine ecosystems. Ecosystems 9: 961–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelcich, S., Edwards-Jones, G. & Kaiser, M.J. (2007) Heterogeneity in fishers harvesting behavior under a territorial user rights policy. Ecological Economics 61: 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelcich, S., Godoy, N., Prado, L. & Castilla, J.C. (2008) Add-on conservation benefits of marine territorial user rights fishery policies in central Chile. Ecological Applications (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J.M, Branch, G.M., Sibiya, C. & Bill, C. (2003) The Sokhulu subsistence mussel-harvesting project: co-management in action. In: Waves of Change: Coastal and Fisheries Co-management in South Africa, ed. Hauck, M. & Sowman, M., pp. 61–98. Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town Press.Google Scholar
Harris, J.M, Branch, G.M., Clark, B.M. & Sibiya, C. (2007) Redressing access inequalities and implementing formal management systems for marine and estuarine subsistence fisheries in South Africa. In: Fisheries Management. Progress Towards Sustainability, ed. McClanahan, T.. & Castilla, J.C.. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing: 332 pp.Google Scholar
Hauck, M. & Hector, R. (2003) Towards abalone and rock lobster co-management in the Hanglip-Kleinmond area. In: Waves of Change: Coastal and Fisheries Co-management in South Africa, ed. Hauck, M. & Sowman, M., pp. 61–98. Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honkanen, P., Olsen, S.O. & Verplanken, B. (2005) Intention to consume seafood: the importance of habit. Appetite 45: 161–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutton, T. & Pitcher, T.J. (1998) Current directions in fisheries management policy: a perspective on co-management and its application to South African fisheries. South African Journal of Marine Science 19: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jentoft, S. (1989) Fisheries co-management: delegating government responsibility to fishermen's organisations. Marine Policy 13: 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, W.D., Pelkey, N.W. & Sabatier, P.A. (2002) Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21: 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzoft, S., Lichtensztajn, Y. & Stotz, W. (2002) Competing visions for marine tenure and co-management: Genesis of a marine management area system in Chile. Coastal Management 30: 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClanahan, T. & Castilla, J.C. (2007) Fisheries Management. Progress Towards Sustainability. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing: 332 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClanahan, T., Davies, J. & Maina, J. (2005) Factors influencing resource users and managers’ perceptions towards marine protected area management in Kenya. Environmental Conservation 32: 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConney, P., Pomeroy, R. & Mahon, R. (2003) Guidelines for coastal resource co-management in the Caribbean: communicating the concepts and conditions that favor success. Caribbean Coastal Co-Management Guidelines Project. Caribbean Conservation Association, Barbados: 56 pp.Google Scholar
Michel-Guillou, E. & Moser, G. (2006) Commitment of farmers to environmental protection: From social pressure to environmental conscience. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26: 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. & Potter, C. (1995) Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 11: 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napier, V., Branch, G. & Harris, J. (2005) Evaluating conditions for successful co-management of subsistence fisheries in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Environmental Conservation 32: 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, J.R., Degnbol, P., Viswanathan, K., Ahmed, M., Hara, M. & Raja, N. (2004) Fisheries co-management: an institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and Southern Africa. Marine Policy 28: 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, P., Folke, C. & Berkes, F. (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34: 75–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallant, J. (2004) SPSS Survival Manual. A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows. UK: Open University Press: 286 pp.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, R. & Berkes, F. (1997) Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 21: 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pikitch, E.K., Santora, C., Babcock, E.A., Bakun, A., Bonfil, R., Conover, D.O., Dayton, P., Doukakis, P., Fluharty, D., Heneman, B., Houde, E.D., Link, J., Livingston, P.A., Mangel, M., McAllister, M.K., Pope, J. & Sainsbury, K.J. (2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science 305: 346–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinkerton, E.W. (1994) Local fisheries co-management: a review of international experiences and their implications for salmon management in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 2363–2378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pretty, J. (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302: 1912–1914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, E.A., Kaiser, M.J. & Edwards-Jones, G. (2005) Variation in fishers' attitudes within an inshore fishery: implications for management. Environmental Conservation 32: 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaaf, K.A., Ross-Davis, A.L. & Broussard, S.R. (2006) Exploring the dimensionality and social bases of the public's timber harvesting attitudes. Landscape and Urban Planning 78: 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, S. & Neilsen, R. (1996) Fisheries co-management: a comparative analysis. Marine Policy 20: 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sernapesca (2005) Informe sectorial pesquero artesanal [www document]. URL http://www.sernapesca.cl/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=246&func=select&id=271.Google Scholar
Thorpe, A., Ibarra, A. & Reid, C. (1999) The new economic model and fisheries development in Latin America. CEMARE Research Paper 141, University of Portsmouth, UK: 20 pp.Google Scholar
Verplanken, B., Hofstee, G. & Janssen, H.J.W. (1998) Accessibility of effective versus cognitive components of attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology 28: 23–35.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiber, M., Berkes, F., Charles, A. & Kearney, J. (2004) Participatory research supporting community-based fishery management. Marine Policy 28: 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, G.A. & Hart, K. (2001) Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: towards conservation-oriented thinking? Sociologica Ruralis: 41: 254–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2006) Scaling up marine management: the role of marine protected areas. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Zenetell, B. & Knuth, B. (2004) Participation rhetoric or community-based management reality? influences on willingness to participate in a Venezuelan freshwater fishery. World Development 32: 793–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar