| Title |
The Key Role of the Barefoot Fisheries Advisors in the Co-managed TURF System of Galicia (NW Spain)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-013-0460-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gonzalo Macho, Inés Naya, Juan Freire, Sebastián Villasante, José Molares |
| Abstract |
Many authors have pointed out the need for simpler assessment and management procedures for avoiding overexploitation in small-scale fisheries. Nevertheless, models for providing scientific advice for sustainable small-scale fisheries management have not yet been published. Here we present one model; the case of the Barefoot Fisheries Advisors (BFAs) in the Galician co-managed Territorial Users Rights for Fishing. Based on informal interviews, gray literature and our personal experience by being involved in this process, we have analyzed the historical development and evolution of roles of this novel and stimulating actor in small-scale fisheries management. The Galician BFA model allows the provision of good quality and organized fisheries data to facilitate and support decision-making processes. The BFAs also build robust social capital by acting as knowledge collectors and translators between fishers, managers, and scientists. The BFAs have become key actors in the small-scale fisheries management of Galicia and a case for learning lessons. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 36% |
| United States | 2 | 18% |
| India | 1 | 9% |
| Greece | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 98 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 23% |
| Researcher | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 21% |
| Unknown | 17 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 29 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 15% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 22 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2022.
All research outputs
#2,196,039
of 23,543,207 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#394
of 1,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,146
of 216,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,543,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 216,797 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.