↓ Skip to main content

Lessons for resource conservation from two contrasting small-scale fisheries

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
Title
Lessons for resource conservation from two contrasting small-scale fisheries
Published in
Ambio, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13280-014-0552-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hampus Eriksson, Maricela de la Torre-Castro, Steven W. Purcell, Per Olsson

Abstract

Small-scale fisheries present challenges to management due to fishers' dependency on resources and the adaptability of management systems. We compared social-ecological processes in the sea cucumber fisheries of Zanzibar and Mayotte, Western Indian Ocean, to better understand the reasons for resource conservation or collapse. Commercial value of wild stocks was at least 30 times higher in Mayotte than in Zanzibar owing to lower fishing pressure. Zanzibar fishers were financially reliant on the fishery and increased fishing effort as stocks declined. This behavioral response occurred without adaptive management and reinforced an unsustainable fishery. In contrast, resource managers in Mayotte adapted to changing fishing effort and stock abundance by implementing a precautionary fishery closure before crossing critical thresholds. Fishery closure may be a necessary measure in small-scale fisheries to preserve vulnerable resources until reliable management systems are devised. Our comparison highlighted four poignant lessons for managing small-scale fisheries: (1) diagnose the fishery regularly, (2) enable an adaptive management system, (3) constrain exploitation within ecological limits, and (4) share management responsibility.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 23%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 22 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 28 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 21%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 4%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 29 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 March 2022.
All research outputs
#4,705,813
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#750
of 1,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,975
of 251,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 251,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.