Conservation Strategies Through the Lens of Small-Scale Fishers in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador: Perceptions Underlying Local Resistance to Marine Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial management tools are increasingly used in marine protected areas (MPAs). In the Galapagos Archipelago two zoning plans have been designed to advance resource management and protection: one in 2000, implemented through participatory processes under a co-management regime; the other in 2016, designed within a new regulatory framework and with strong input from international conservation advocates. The new zoning plan has been actively resisted by small-scale fishers. We analyze qualitative data from 149 questionnaire surveys and 16 key informant interviews to assess fishers’ perceptions of the re-zoning process. The perceptions that underpin fishers’ resistance to the new zoning plan converge in five principal themes that raise questions about the legitimacy, fairness, transparency, and viability of this management tool. This study provides further evidence of the strategic importance of incorporating human dimensions in MPA management and, more particularly, of understanding social concerns that may critically impede the progress of marine resource conservation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".