The psychological impacts of community‐based protected areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This cross‐sectional and mixed‐methods study uses Self‐Determination Theory and the Theory of Basic Human Values to investigate changes in motivations, attitudes, beliefs and values following the establishment of community‐based marine protected areas (MPAs). Open‐ended and retrospective questions, as well as survey instruments, were used in six communities with different‐aged (new: 1–3 years old, medium‐aged: 5–11 years old and old: 20–25 years old) MPAs in the Philippines. Respondents included both community members either involved (n = 101) or not involved (n = 108) in MPA management. Respondents reported increased appreciation for the benefits of MPAs and more positive attitudes about MPAs over time. In comparison to respondents from communities with new MPAs, respondents in communities with medium‐aged and old MPAs identified a wider range of MPA impacts on themselves (e.g. new friendships, learning and greater pro‐environmental values), their community (e.g. increased fish catch, social capital), and on ecosystems (e.g. different species and ecosystems‐types). Similarly, respondents from medium‐aged and old MPAs had fewer non‐autonomous motivations (i.e. motivations arising externally, such as social status or pay) to engage in MPA management and also had higher self‐transcendence values, such as caring for nature. These results suggest that community‐based MPAs may encourage psychological shifts in communities such as greater autonomous motivation to care for nature and enhanced self‐transcendence values, both of which may support conservation. By developing a more holistic approach to assessing the multi‐faceted impacts of community‐based conservation, this type of psychological research helps to identify and prioritize timely actions in the establishment and maintenance of resilient and sustainable community‐based MPAs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".