Uneven paths in co-management: A comparative analysis of a shrimp and a lobster fishery based on Ostrom's design principles

IF 3.7 2区社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Marine Policy Pub Date : 2025-09-05 DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106894

Nilamon de Oliveira Leite Júnior , Sâmia Lívia Testtzlaffe Alpoim , Nádia Ortolan da Vitória , Agnaldo Silva Martins

{"title":"Uneven paths in co-management: A comparative analysis of a shrimp and a lobster fishery based on Ostrom's design principles","authors":"Nilamon de Oliveira Leite Júnior , Sâmia Lívia Testtzlaffe Alpoim , Nádia Ortolan da Vitória , Agnaldo Silva Martins","doi":"10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study compares two cases of shrimp and lobster fisheries in Brazil, evaluating their compliance with common-pool resource design principles. The analysis seeks to identify what factors contributed to their successes or failures and develop recommendations for strengthening these two management processes. The shrimp fishery showed more effective outcomes, mainly due to compliance with key principles like clearly defined boundaries (1 A, 1B), alignment of fishing regulations with local reality (2 A, 2B), fisher participation in rule-making (3), and recognition of fishers' rights (7). While the shrimp fishery is on a positive co-management path, the lobster fishery suffered from top-down management, unclear territorial boundaries, and regulations misaligned with local practices, leading to widespread illegal fishing of the resource. The study emphasizes the need to reinforce local governance, recognize fishers' rights, align fishery regulations with local realities, and improve monitoring and enforcement.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48427,"journal":{"name":"Marine Policy","volume":"183 ","pages":"Article 106894"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marine Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X25003100","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study compares two cases of shrimp and lobster fisheries in Brazil, evaluating their compliance with common-pool resource design principles. The analysis seeks to identify what factors contributed to their successes or failures and develop recommendations for strengthening these two management processes. The shrimp fishery showed more effective outcomes, mainly due to compliance with key principles like clearly defined boundaries (1 A, 1B), alignment of fishing regulations with local reality (2 A, 2B), fisher participation in rule-making (3), and recognition of fishers' rights (7). While the shrimp fishery is on a positive co-management path, the lobster fishery suffered from top-down management, unclear territorial boundaries, and regulations misaligned with local practices, leading to widespread illegal fishing of the resource. The study emphasizes the need to reinforce local governance, recognize fishers' rights, align fishery regulations with local realities, and improve monitoring and enforcement.

查看原文本刊更多论文

共同管理中的不平坦路径：基于奥斯特罗姆设计原则的虾和龙虾渔业的比较分析

本研究比较了巴西虾和龙虾渔业的两个案例，评估了它们是否符合公共池资源设计原则。分析力求查明导致其成功或失败的因素，并提出加强这两个管理过程的建议。对虾渔业表现出更有效的结果，这主要是由于遵守了明确界定的边界（1 A, 1B）、渔业法规与当地实际相一致（2 A, 2B）、渔民参与规则制定(3)和承认渔民权利(7)等关键原则。虽然虾类渔业正走在积极的共同管理道路上，但龙虾渔业却受到自上而下的管理、不明确的领土边界以及与当地做法不一致的法规的困扰，导致了广泛的非法捕捞资源。该研究强调需要加强地方治理，承认渔民的权利，使渔业法规与当地实际情况保持一致，并改善监测和执法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Marine Policy Multiple-

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

13.20%

发文量

428

期刊介绍： Marine Policy is the leading journal of ocean policy studies. It offers researchers, analysts and policy makers a unique combination of analyses in the principal social science disciplines relevant to the formulation of marine policy. Major articles are contributed by specialists in marine affairs, including marine economists and marine resource managers, political scientists, marine scientists, international lawyers, geographers and anthropologists. Drawing on their expertise and research, the journal covers: international, regional and national marine policies; institutional arrangements for the management and regulation of marine activities, including fisheries and shipping; conflict resolution; marine pollution and environment; conservation and use of marine resources. Regular features of Marine Policy include research reports, conference reports and reports on current developments to keep readers up-to-date with the latest developments and research in ocean affairs.