4.7 Review

Integrating customary management into marine conservation

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 140, 期 3-4, 页码 201-216

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.08.008

关键词

taboos; informal institutions; adaptive management; fisheries; biodiversity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In many parts of the world, there is increasing interest among scientists, managers, and communities in merging long-enduring customary practices such as taboos that limit resource use with contemporary resource management initiatives. Here, we synthesize the literature on the customary management of coral reefs emerging from diverse disciplines including anthropology, common property economics, and ecology. First, we review various customary management strategies and draw parallels with Western fisheries management. Secondly, we examine customary resource management and conservation. We argue that, while resource conservation often appears to be an unintended by-product of other social processes, customary management can, in fact, conserve marine resources. In the third section, we examine the resilience of customary management institutions to socioeconomic transformations. We suggest that in conditions of high population and commercialization of marine resources, property rights may become strengthened but arrangements that rely on self-restraint become weakened. Finally, we examine the commensurability of customary management and conservation. We emphasize that practical and conceptual differences exist between customary management and contemporary conservation which have often led to failed attempts to hybridize these systems. However, when these differences are understood and acknowledged there exists a potential to develop adaptive management systems that are: (1) highly flexible; (2) able to conserve resources, and; (3) able to meet community goals. In each section, we provide research priorities. We conclude by developing six key features of successful hybrid management systems.

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

4.7
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