The ambiguous impacts of alternative livelihoods on fisher wellbeing in a closed access fish sanctuary in Port Antonio, Jamaica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative livelihood programs are a central feature of contemporary conservation planning that aim to aid efforts to reduce pressure on natural resources and avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts of conservation on the wellbeing of local stakeholders. Evidence of the effectiveness of these programs is, however, decidedly mixed. This research examines the relationship between livelihoods, conservation, and wellbeing among nearshore fishers in Port Antonio, Jamaica, in the context of a recently established marine no-take area. The East Portland Fish Sanctuary was established in 2016 with the aim of supporting the recovery of depleted nearshore fish stocks, marine habitats, and mitigating impacts on local communities and fishers through a range of activities. Mitigation of impacts included efforts to shift pressure from overexploited nearshore fish stocks to offshore resources and to provide support to fishers for training and opportunities to earn income in the tourism sector. The results suggest that additional sources of income tended to enhance the wellbeing of fishers across several dimensions but that it also contributed to additional pressure on nearshore resources. Furthermore, neither tourism nor offshore fishing appear to be particularly promising in terms of their ability to deliver “win-win” outcomes for conservation and wellbeing. Instead, the results suggest that the impacts of different types of alternative livelihoods on conservation and wellbeing are highly variable and perhaps that efforts should be redirected to supporting efforts to provide suitable and acceptable alternatives to spearfishing which appears to have one of the largest overall impacts on individual harvest rates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".