MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183791286 · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2015.11.004

Drivers of recreational fisher compliance in temperate marine conservation areas: A study of Rockfish Conservation Areas in British Columbia, Canada

2015· article· en· W2183791286 on OpenAlex
Darienne Lancaster, Philip Dearden, Natalie C. Ban

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Conservation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsRockfishFishingFisheryOverfishingRecreationMarine protected areaMarine conservationBycatchGeographyEnvironmental resource managementHabitatEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overfishing has impacted marine species over the last century, with many large-bodied and long-lived species declining to critical levels. Marine conservation areas are a popular management tool to protect and recover marine species and their habitats from intensive fishing pressure and human caused marine degradation. However, many marine conservation areas are thought to have low levels of compliance from diverse fishing populations. Little research exists that quantifies recreational fisher compliance and its drivers within marine conservation areas. We used the Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) in British Columbia as a case study to investigate drivers of compliance. Our objectives were to (1) assess levels of recreational fisher RCA knowledge and compliance, (2) explore factors influencing fisher RCA knowledge and compliance, (3) quantitatively assess levels of fisher rockfish bycatch and release rates, (4) elicit fisher perceptions of RCAs, and (5) obtain fishers’ suggestions for improving rockfish conservation. We conducted 325 structured dockside interviews with recreational fishers in 16 locations. Intentional noncompliance was reported by seven percent of recreational fishers, and accidental noncompliance by 16%. The main reason for noncompliance was lack of knowledge. Recreational fishers were almost uniformly unknowledgeable of RCAs and their regulations across fishing experience levels. We found that 25.5% of recreational fishers had never heard of RCAs and ∼60% were unsure of RCA locations. However, 77% of fishers believed that rockfish conservation is necessary. The high recreational noncompliance rate in RCAs–primarily accidental fishing–is likely compromising the ability of these marine conservation areas to protect inshore rockfish. The ecological usefulness of marine conservation areas hinges upon users knowing about, and understanding, conservation area rules and regulations. We recommend managers implement a public outreach and education campaign to address the high levels of noncompliance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it