Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: A meta-analysis
Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: A meta-analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.010
复制
发表时间：
2011-08-01
影响因子：
8.7
通讯作者：
Pemsl, Diemuth
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Evans, Louisa;Cherrett, Nia;Pemsl, Diemuth
共同管理现已成为发展中世界小规模渔业管理的主流做法。对204个潜在案例的全面审查显示，缺乏对渔业共同管理的影响评估。本研究报告了对发展中国家渔业共同管理在90个地点的29个案例研究的影响进行的荟萃分析。最常测量的五个过程指标是参与、影响、规则遵守、资源控制和冲突。最经常衡量的五项成果指标是获得资源、资源福祉、渔业产量、家庭福祉和家庭收入。由于52项指标的多样性，以及收集和分析这些数据的不同方法，我们采用了一个编码系统来捕捉随时间的变化。元分析的结果表明，总体渔业共同管理通过改善关键的过程和成果指标，为最终用户带来了好处。然而，数据集作为一个整体主要由菲律宾的数据组成。当我们排除这部分工作时，很少能对渔业共同管理的影响做出概括。缺乏适合影响评估的比较数据，以及在比较数据和在国家和地区之间进行概括方面的困难，再次呼吁在其他领域采取更系统的方法来理解和评估治理框架。(C)2011爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有。
Co-management is now established as a mainstream approach to small-scale fisheries management across the developing world. A comprehensive review of 204 potential cases reveals a lack of impact assessments of fisheries co-management. This study reports on a meta-analysis of the impact of fisheries co-management in developing countries in 90 sites across 29 case-studies. The top five most frequently measured process indicators are participation, influence, rule compliance, control over resources, and conflict. The top five most frequently measured outcome indicators are access to resources, resource well-being, fishery yield, household well-being, and household income. To deal with the diversity of the 52 indicators measured and the different ways these data are collected and analysed, we apply a coding system to capture change over time. The results of the meta-analysis suggest that, overall fisheries co-management delivers benefits to end-users through improvements in key process and outcome indicators. However, the dataset as a whole is constituted primarily of data from the Philippines. When we exclude this body of work, few generalisations can be made about the impact of fisheries co-management The lack of comparative data suitable for impact assessment and the difficulties in comparing data and generalising across countries and regions reiterates calls in other fields for more systematic approaches to understanding and evaluating governance frameworks. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.