4.3 Article

History, culture, infrastructure and export markets shape fisheries and reef accessibility in India's contrasting oceanic islands

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 41-48

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S037689291700042X

关键词

accessibility; travel time; export markets; oceanic islands; infrastructure; traditional management; coral reef fisheries; grouper; tuna; settlement history

资金

  1. Rohini Nilekani
  2. Rufford Foundation
  3. Ravi Sankaran Inlaks Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Islands offer unique model systems for studying fisheries development in relation to the growing global seafood trade. This study examines how export-driven fisheries in India's oceanic islands (Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep Islands) differ significantly as a result of their varied history, culture, available infrastructure and market access. Despite being geographically closer to export centres on the Indian mainland, processing and transport infrastructure in the Lakshadweep Islands are limited. This only allows for the trade of non-perishable commodities like dried tuna that are caught using traditional pole-and-line fishing techniques, restricting reef exploitation to local preference-based consumption and opportunistic export. The Andaman Islands, on the other hand, with multiple daily flight connections and large private and government processing facilities, are better connected to export markets. The relatively recent and multicultural fisheries of these islands supply marine commodity chains for reef fishery goods such as dried shark fins, frozen snapper fillets and chilled groupers. The Nicobar Islands are furthest away from mainland export centres and are mostly populated by indigenous communities - fishing here is mostly for subsistence and local sale. Revised estimates of travel times to export market centres are counterintuitive in terms of geographical distances and are significantly different from travel times to local markets.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据