Co-management of coral reef fisheries: a critical evaluation of the literature
Wamukota, A.W.; Cinner, J.E.; McClanahan, T. R. (2012). Co-management of coral reef fisheries: a critical evaluation of the literature. Mar. Policy 36(2): 481-488. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.09.001
In: Marine Policy. Elsevier: UK. ISSN 0308-597X; e-ISSN 1872-9460, more
|  |
| Author keywords |
Common property, institutional design principles, co-management, socioeconomic |
| Authors | | Top |
- Wamukota, A.W.
- Cinner, J.E.
- McClanahan, T. R.
|
|
|
| Abstract |
In many parts of the world, inshore marine resources are being increasingly managed through collaborative arrangements between communities, governments, civil society and other groups. However, co-management of fisheries has had a mixture of successes and failures. Theorists and applied researchers have suggested a series of preconditions or factors thought to improve the chances of successful common-pool resource management. These include common property institutional design principles and their contextual conditions. Using a variety of web-based English keyword searches, published literature on community-based management and co-management of coral reefs was systematically reviewed with the view of determining if and how studies were evaluating these management systems as well as the extent to which critical aspects of common property theory were investigated and tested. Based on a screening of 600 and full evaluation of 157 journal articles, four measures of ecological conditions and five measures of contextual condition improvement were examined or could be evaluated with the data presented in 38 papers, which examined 49 co-management projects. Fewer than half of the 49 studies met the inclusion criteria of the analyses for documenting key design principles or contextual conditions. Additionally, most projects did not systematically report on contextual conditions, common property design principles and measures of success. The analysis demonstrates the large theoretical and empirical gaps in the evaluation of these management systems and begs for a more scientific, critical and multivariate approach. |
|
