MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7063896818

Aligning Decision-making and Key Behaviors with Effective Fisheries Management

2016· article· en· W7063896818 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueDigital Commons - Center for the Blue Economy (Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey) · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLivelihoodUnintended consequencesFisheries managementProcess (computing)Key (lock)Resource (disambiguation)Resource management (computing)Fish <Actinopterygii>
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

At least two-thirds of global fish stocks are overfished or fully exploited (FAO, 2014). As a result, fisheries are not producing nearly as much food, profit, or livelihood opportunities as they could be. Well implemented and effective Rights Based Management (RBM) can reverse these trends, but designing and implementing such systems is challenging. There are good design principles based on research and experience for designing RBM systems, focused on ensuring that stakeholders buy into management measures and that fishermen can capture the benefits of their own conservation efforts. However, there are many other decisions that must be made and behaviors that must be exhibited by fishery scientists, resource managers, fishermen, and others to make the entire RBM system effective. Because managing a fishery is a human enterprise, understanding the decisions and behaviors of fishermen and managers is imperative for achieving sustainability. The fishery management process is complex, involving multiple decisions and behaviors by several actors. Fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen are motivated and affected by a number of internal and external variables. Economic, social, political, cultural, psychological, or other personal factors influence decision-making and can induce undesired or unintended behavioral responses. Therefore, understanding human decision-making processes and their drivers is vital in ensuring the success of effective fishery management strategies. The purpose of this report is to describe specific behaviors and decisions that have large impacts on the efficacy of fishery management, and generate ideas for interventions that may influence those behaviors such that they become more aligned with effective management. This report does not discredit top-down regulations nor advocate for an entirely behavioral approach. Rather, it seeks to establish a broader context for discussion regarding challenges in fishery management that may be amenable to behavioral interventions. Behavioral interventions deployed as part of a comprehensive management strategy would be anticipated to enhance the efficacy of fishery management, just as they have in other sectors such as health, education, and energy use (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009). Generic interventions suggested in this assessment are for illustrative purposes only, and are neither prescriptive nor a panacea for all fishery management problems. Every fishery is unique and interventions need to be specific to local needs and contexts. The methodology for this research is a desktop analysis, an extensive literature review of the major challenges and drivers impeding effective fishery management. We begin with a background discussion of human behavior and how behavioral interventions may influence better decision-making. We then outline the fishery management process to describe the stakeholders involved in managing a fishery and the types of decisions that must be taken for its success. We examine three key groups of actors in fisheries management: the fishery management authority, fisheries scientists, and fishermen. Each group is analyzed, including their roles, level of influence within the decision-making process, and currently exhibited behaviors. There are six challenges addressed in this report that appear consistently throughout fisheries management literature and that have a major impact on fishery efficiency and sustainability: (1) resistance to data-limited assessment (2) translating science to management action (3) communicating uncertainty and risk to stakeholders (4) catch misreporting (5) bycatch and discarding and (6) destructive fishing (Peterman, 2004; Hilborn et al., 2005; Daw and Gray, 2005; OECD, 2010; OECD; 2013; Government of Canada, 2011). Drawing on theories from psychology, behavioral economics, and social sciences literature, we investigate the drivers of each challenge and craft illustrative behavioral interventions. (exerpt from Introduction, download PDF for full introduction.)

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,064

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,021
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,006
Communication savante0,0070,005
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,251
Écart entre enseignants0,235 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDigital Commons - Center for the Blue Economy (Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey)Même sujetAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingTravaux en français237 207