Small-Scale Fishers' Participation in Consultative Councils of Protected Areas in the Southeastern Coast of Brazil: Challenges for Public Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Despite the growing literature identifying factors leading to effective and successful participation, the academic field of evaluation of participatory mechanisms still needs empirical cases. In the municipality of Paraty (Rio de Janeiro State), SE Brazil, small-scale fishers from the community of Trindade participate directly, or are represented, in four consultative councils of protected areas (PAs), in which they struggle to maintain their traditional rights over fishing territories within PAs. This study aims to evaluate the exercise of participation by small-scale fishers and leaders of community-based organizations from Trindade, and other organizations representing them, in the Consultative Councils of the Serra da Bocaina National Park (SBNP) and Bocaina Mosaic (BM), a set of 29 PAs (including the SBNP). The evaluation was performed based on criteria from the public participation scholarship, such as representation, communication and transparency. Findings show that communication among participants during the meetings is unidirectional, hierarchical and controlled by the meetings’ coordinators/facilitators – always PA managers. Fishers are represented in the sense that they participate in the meetings but they have no voice in decisions that affect them. Some decisions are just informed by the managers, without transparency about the processes which created them. Although the councils we analyzed are an accomplishment in the field of public participation in Brazil since the creation of the National System of Conservation Units in 2000, there are still numerous challenges. We provide some recommendations for the improvement of these councils as multi-stakeholder participation arenas."
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".