Marine Protected Areas in Peninsular Malaysia: Shifting from Political Process to Co-Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since fishing is a primary source of income to the coastal communities, conservation of marine natural resources is crucial to safeguard its sustainable supply. Therefore, intensive measures should be taken by all the stakeholders – from the authorities to the local fishermen. The precious coral reefs should be protected as important breeding habitat of various commercially valued species of marine resources and. Thus, in carrying out the political process of designating marine protected areas (MPAs) as marine parks, the local communities must also be engaged by the government due to their proximity to and dependency on the environment as direct resources users. Co-management or collaborative management by engaging the local communities, or community-based management, is the concept that could be able to remedy ineffective MPAs management in Peninsular Malaysia. Co-management or collaborative management approach between the authorities and the communities must be strategised by factoring in their local knowledge of living within and off the marine environment and resources. This study utilises content analysis method on the primary data, namely the national policies, federal acts, and state enactments. While the secondary data in form of official reports, scholarly articles and others deemed relevant are used to supplement and support the findings. This paper dwells on the possibility of shifting the process of MPAs designation from political process to co-management in Peninsular Malaysia, in order to achieve both environmental stability and the livelihood sustainability of the local communities.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".