| Title |
The invisibility of fisheries in the process of hydropower development across the Amazon
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-017-0994-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carolina Rodrigues da Costa Doria, Simone Athayde, Elineide E. Marques, Maria Alice Leite Lima, Jynessa Dutka-Gianelli, Mauro Luis Ruffino, David Kaplan, Carlos E. C. Freitas, Victoria N. Isaac |
| Abstract |
We analyze the invisibility of fisheries and inadequacy of fishers' participation in the process of hydropower development in the Amazon, focusing on gaps between legally mandated and actual outcomes. Using Ostrom's institutional design principles for assessing common-pool resource management, we selected five case studies from Brazilian Amazonian watersheds to conduct an exploratory comparative case-study analysis. We identify similar problems across basins, including deficiencies in the dam licensing process; critical data gaps; inadequate stakeholder participation; violation of human rights; neglect of fishers' knowledge; lack of organization and representation by fishers' groups; and lack of governmental structure and capacity to manage dam construction activities or support fishers after dam construction. Fishers have generally been marginalized or excluded from decision-making regarding planning, construction, mitigation, compensation, and monitoring of the social-ecological impacts of hydroelectric dams. Addressing these deficiencies will require concerted investments and efforts by dam developers, government agencies and civil society, and the promotion of inter-sectorial dialogue and cross-scale participatory planning and decision-making that includes fishers and their associations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 191 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 48 | 25% |
| Unknown | 51 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 42 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 39 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 8% |
| Engineering | 8 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 12% |
| Unknown | 61 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 April 2022.
All research outputs
#14,111,577
of 23,910,532 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,405
of 1,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,699
of 445,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#25
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,910,532 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 445,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.