Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves in Brazil: resilient alternatives to fisheries?
This study uses the socio-ecological resilience concept to compare two categories of fisheries co-management in Brazil: Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves. Ecological resilience was estimated by the indicators: reserve areas, human density and the existence of buffer zones around the re...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of environmental planning and management 2011-05, Vol.54 (4), p.421-443 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 443 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 421 |
container_title | Journal of environmental planning and management |
container_volume | 54 |
creator | Lopes, Priscila F.M Silvano, Renato A.M Begossi, Alpina |
description | This study uses the socio-ecological resilience concept to compare two categories of fisheries co-management in Brazil: Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves. Ecological resilience was estimated by the indicators: reserve areas, human density and the existence of buffer zones around the reserves. Indicators for social-resilience were grouped in two categories: flexibility (assessed by livelihood diversification and resources exploited) and capacity to organize (assessed by local/governrnenta1 demand for reserve creation, existence of fishing management rules or management plans, participation in the decision-making process and existence of self-monitoring). Amazonian reserves are larger, have buffer zones and people depend on a broader range of natural resources compared to those on the coast. However, the inhabitants of coastal reserves can rely on ecotourism and jobs outside the reserves, which may reduce local fishing pressure. Both regions have reserves created using top-down initiatives as well as those created from local demands. Yet, participation in decision making is not necessarily related to the origin of demand and the level of local involvement can be limited in either case. Unless co-management is followed by adaptive management, increased local participation of people in management and the diversification of economic sources. its benefit to resilience is limited. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/09640568.2010.508687 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1777114627</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2351938381</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c683t-911141f74e580211c6a53d3e709076ec49368321f03cd5b59d2c02d29afec3633</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkstuFDEQRVsIJELgD5BosYHNhPLbZhNBCC9FQiJkbTnu6sQj9wO7Z2D4etxqQIgFMwu7rPK513a5quoxgRMCGl6AkRyE1CcUSkqAllrdqY4Ik7ACIczdv9b3qwc5rwFAMCKPKnv-fUrOT2GLteub-nKTJxd6dx2xfoNbjMPYYT_VnzFj2mKuQ1-_Tu5HiC_rhDnEMO-6OGHq3eyS62mo25BvMQXMpw-re62LGR_9isfV1dvzL2fvVxef3n04e3Wx8lKzaWUIIZy0iqPQQAnx0gnWMFRgQEn03LDCUdIC8424FqahHmhDjWvRM8nYcfVs8R3T8HWDebJdyB5jdD0Om2xNqRNhgtK9pDaGSE6E3E9qTcplOT-MJAIOICXTRlNpCvn8vyRRSpWiSaoORAHk_Pqn_6DrYVO-Ls5HK0EZ17MfXyCfhpwTtnZMoXNpZwnYuePs746zc8fZpeOK7OMiSzii_6OZXLvGfuxu7NYyJ3iZdmUUJSkhlDGnxjlSYks17e3UFbPTxSz07ZA6921IsSleuzikNrneh2zZnus8WRxaN1h3k4rg6rIAHIAoXSD2E3ck-4k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>867523487</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves in Brazil: resilient alternatives to fisheries?</title><source>RePEc</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Access via Taylor & Francis</source><creator>Lopes, Priscila F.M ; Silvano, Renato A.M ; Begossi, Alpina</creator><creatorcontrib>Lopes, Priscila F.M ; Silvano, Renato A.M ; Begossi, Alpina</creatorcontrib><description>This study uses the socio-ecological resilience concept to compare two categories of fisheries co-management in Brazil: Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves. Ecological resilience was estimated by the indicators: reserve areas, human density and the existence of buffer zones around the reserves. Indicators for social-resilience were grouped in two categories: flexibility (assessed by livelihood diversification and resources exploited) and capacity to organize (assessed by local/governrnenta1 demand for reserve creation, existence of fishing management rules or management plans, participation in the decision-making process and existence of self-monitoring). Amazonian reserves are larger, have buffer zones and people depend on a broader range of natural resources compared to those on the coast. However, the inhabitants of coastal reserves can rely on ecotourism and jobs outside the reserves, which may reduce local fishing pressure. Both regions have reserves created using top-down initiatives as well as those created from local demands. Yet, participation in decision making is not necessarily related to the origin of demand and the level of local involvement can be limited in either case. Unless co-management is followed by adaptive management, increased local participation of people in management and the diversification of economic sources. its benefit to resilience is limited.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1360-0559</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0964-0568</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1360-0559</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2010.508687</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JEPMF7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Routledge</publisher><subject>Amazon ; Benefits ; Brazil ; Brazilian coast ; Categories ; Citizen participation ; co-management ; collaborative management ; Comparative analysis ; Decision making ; Demand ; Ecology ; Economic development ; Economics ; Ecotourism ; Employment ; Environmental policy ; Fisheries ; Fisheries management ; Fishery management ; humans ; livelihood ; Management ; Marketing ; Natural resources ; people ; Planning ; Reserves ; Resilience ; Resource management ; resource use ; small scale fisheries ; socio-ecological resilience ; Studies ; Sustainable development</subject><ispartof>Journal of environmental planning and management, 2011-05, Vol.54 (4), p.421-443</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2011</rights><rights>Copyright Taylor & Francis Ltd. 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c683t-911141f74e580211c6a53d3e709076ec49368321f03cd5b59d2c02d29afec3633</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c683t-911141f74e580211c6a53d3e709076ec49368321f03cd5b59d2c02d29afec3633</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09640568.2010.508687$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2010.508687$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,4009,27869,27870,27928,27929,59651,60440</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafjenpmg/v_3a54_3ay_3a2011_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a421-443.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lopes, Priscila F.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silvano, Renato A.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Begossi, Alpina</creatorcontrib><title>Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves in Brazil: resilient alternatives to fisheries?</title><title>Journal of environmental planning and management</title><description>This study uses the socio-ecological resilience concept to compare two categories of fisheries co-management in Brazil: Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves. Ecological resilience was estimated by the indicators: reserve areas, human density and the existence of buffer zones around the reserves. Indicators for social-resilience were grouped in two categories: flexibility (assessed by livelihood diversification and resources exploited) and capacity to organize (assessed by local/governrnenta1 demand for reserve creation, existence of fishing management rules or management plans, participation in the decision-making process and existence of self-monitoring). Amazonian reserves are larger, have buffer zones and people depend on a broader range of natural resources compared to those on the coast. However, the inhabitants of coastal reserves can rely on ecotourism and jobs outside the reserves, which may reduce local fishing pressure. Both regions have reserves created using top-down initiatives as well as those created from local demands. Yet, participation in decision making is not necessarily related to the origin of demand and the level of local involvement can be limited in either case. Unless co-management is followed by adaptive management, increased local participation of people in management and the diversification of economic sources. its benefit to resilience is limited.</description><subject>Amazon</subject><subject>Benefits</subject><subject>Brazil</subject><subject>Brazilian coast</subject><subject>Categories</subject><subject>Citizen participation</subject><subject>co-management</subject><subject>collaborative management</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Demand</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Economic development</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Ecotourism</subject><subject>Employment</subject><subject>Environmental policy</subject><subject>Fisheries</subject><subject>Fisheries management</subject><subject>Fishery management</subject><subject>humans</subject><subject>livelihood</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Marketing</subject><subject>Natural resources</subject><subject>people</subject><subject>Planning</subject><subject>Reserves</subject><subject>Resilience</subject><subject>Resource management</subject><subject>resource use</subject><subject>small scale fisheries</subject><subject>socio-ecological resilience</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Sustainable development</subject><issn>1360-0559</issn><issn>0964-0568</issn><issn>1360-0559</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>X2L</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkstuFDEQRVsIJELgD5BosYHNhPLbZhNBCC9FQiJkbTnu6sQj9wO7Z2D4etxqQIgFMwu7rPK513a5quoxgRMCGl6AkRyE1CcUSkqAllrdqY4Ik7ACIczdv9b3qwc5rwFAMCKPKnv-fUrOT2GLteub-nKTJxd6dx2xfoNbjMPYYT_VnzFj2mKuQ1-_Tu5HiC_rhDnEMO-6OGHq3eyS62mo25BvMQXMpw-re62LGR_9isfV1dvzL2fvVxef3n04e3Wx8lKzaWUIIZy0iqPQQAnx0gnWMFRgQEn03LDCUdIC8424FqahHmhDjWvRM8nYcfVs8R3T8HWDebJdyB5jdD0Om2xNqRNhgtK9pDaGSE6E3E9qTcplOT-MJAIOICXTRlNpCvn8vyRRSpWiSaoORAHk_Pqn_6DrYVO-Ls5HK0EZ17MfXyCfhpwTtnZMoXNpZwnYuePs746zc8fZpeOK7OMiSzii_6OZXLvGfuxu7NYyJ3iZdmUUJSkhlDGnxjlSYks17e3UFbPTxSz07ZA6921IsSleuzikNrneh2zZnus8WRxaN1h3k4rg6rIAHIAoXSD2E3ck-4k</recordid><startdate>201105</startdate><enddate>201105</enddate><creator>Lopes, Priscila F.M</creator><creator>Silvano, Renato A.M</creator><creator>Begossi, Alpina</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor and Francis Journals</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7SU</scope><scope>7U6</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201105</creationdate><title>Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves in Brazil: resilient alternatives to fisheries?</title><author>Lopes, Priscila F.M ; Silvano, Renato A.M ; Begossi, Alpina</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c683t-911141f74e580211c6a53d3e709076ec49368321f03cd5b59d2c02d29afec3633</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Amazon</topic><topic>Benefits</topic><topic>Brazil</topic><topic>Brazilian coast</topic><topic>Categories</topic><topic>Citizen participation</topic><topic>co-management</topic><topic>collaborative management</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Demand</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Economic development</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Ecotourism</topic><topic>Employment</topic><topic>Environmental policy</topic><topic>Fisheries</topic><topic>Fisheries management</topic><topic>Fishery management</topic><topic>humans</topic><topic>livelihood</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Marketing</topic><topic>Natural resources</topic><topic>people</topic><topic>Planning</topic><topic>Reserves</topic><topic>Resilience</topic><topic>Resource management</topic><topic>resource use</topic><topic>small scale fisheries</topic><topic>socio-ecological resilience</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Sustainable development</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lopes, Priscila F.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silvano, Renato A.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Begossi, Alpina</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of environmental planning and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lopes, Priscila F.M</au><au>Silvano, Renato A.M</au><au>Begossi, Alpina</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves in Brazil: resilient alternatives to fisheries?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of environmental planning and management</jtitle><date>2011-05</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>421</spage><epage>443</epage><pages>421-443</pages><issn>1360-0559</issn><issn>0964-0568</issn><eissn>1360-0559</eissn><coden>JEPMF7</coden><abstract>This study uses the socio-ecological resilience concept to compare two categories of fisheries co-management in Brazil: Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves. Ecological resilience was estimated by the indicators: reserve areas, human density and the existence of buffer zones around the reserves. Indicators for social-resilience were grouped in two categories: flexibility (assessed by livelihood diversification and resources exploited) and capacity to organize (assessed by local/governrnenta1 demand for reserve creation, existence of fishing management rules or management plans, participation in the decision-making process and existence of self-monitoring). Amazonian reserves are larger, have buffer zones and people depend on a broader range of natural resources compared to those on the coast. However, the inhabitants of coastal reserves can rely on ecotourism and jobs outside the reserves, which may reduce local fishing pressure. Both regions have reserves created using top-down initiatives as well as those created from local demands. Yet, participation in decision making is not necessarily related to the origin of demand and the level of local involvement can be limited in either case. Unless co-management is followed by adaptive management, increased local participation of people in management and the diversification of economic sources. its benefit to resilience is limited.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/09640568.2010.508687</doi><tpages>23</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1360-0559 |
ispartof | Journal of environmental planning and management, 2011-05, Vol.54 (4), p.421-443 |
issn | 1360-0559 0964-0568 1360-0559 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1777114627 |
source | RePEc; PAIS Index; Access via Taylor & Francis |
subjects | Amazon Benefits Brazil Brazilian coast Categories Citizen participation co-management collaborative management Comparative analysis Decision making Demand Ecology Economic development Economics Ecotourism Employment Environmental policy Fisheries Fisheries management Fishery management humans livelihood Management Marketing Natural resources people Planning Reserves Resilience Resource management resource use small scale fisheries socio-ecological resilience Studies Sustainable development |
title | Extractive and Sustainable Development Reserves in Brazil: resilient alternatives to fisheries? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-16T13%3A45%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Extractive%20and%20Sustainable%20Development%20Reserves%20in%20Brazil:%20resilient%20alternatives%20to%20fisheries?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20environmental%20planning%20and%20management&rft.au=Lopes,%20Priscila%20F.M&rft.date=2011-05&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=421&rft.epage=443&rft.pages=421-443&rft.issn=1360-0559&rft.eissn=1360-0559&rft.coden=JEPMF7&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/09640568.2010.508687&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2351938381%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=867523487&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |