渔业科学中土著和地方知识研究与应用的新方向:系统审查的经验教训

IF 5.6 1区 农林科学 Q1 FISHERIES
Benjamin L. H. Jones, Rolando O. Santos, W. Ryan James, Sophia V. Costa, Aaron J. Adams, Ross E. Boucek, Lucy Coals, Leanne C. Cullen-Unsworth, Samuel Shephard, Jennifer S. Rehage
{"title":"渔业科学中土著和地方知识研究与应用的新方向:系统审查的经验教训","authors":"Benjamin L. H. Jones,&nbsp;Rolando O. Santos,&nbsp;W. Ryan James,&nbsp;Sophia V. Costa,&nbsp;Aaron J. Adams,&nbsp;Ross E. Boucek,&nbsp;Lucy Coals,&nbsp;Leanne C. Cullen-Unsworth,&nbsp;Samuel Shephard,&nbsp;Jennifer S. Rehage","doi":"10.1111/faf.12831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Social-ecological systems like fisheries provide food, livelihoods and recreation. However, lack of data and its integration into governance hinders their conservation and management. Stakeholders possess site-specific knowledge crucial for confronting these challenges. There is increasing recognition that Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) is valuable, but structural differences between ILK and quantitative archetypes have stalled the assimilation of ILK into fisheries management, despite acknowledged bias and uncertainty in scientific methods. Conducting a systematic review of fisheries-associated ILK research (<i>n</i> = 397 articles), we examined how ILK is accessed, applied, distributed across space and species, and has evolved. We show that ILK has generated qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative information for diverse taxa across 98 countries. Fisheries-associated ILK research mostly targets small-scale and artisanal fishers (70% of studies) and typically uses semi-structured interviews (60%). We revealed large variability in sample size (<i>n</i> = 4–7638), predicted by the approach employed and the data generated (i.e. qualitative studies target smaller groups). Using thematic categorisation, we show that scientists are still exploring techniques, or ‘validating’ ILK through comparisons with quantitative scientific data (20%), and recording qualitative information of what fishers understand (40%). A few researchers are applying quantitative social science methods to derive trends in abundance, catch and effort. Such approaches facilitate recognition of local insight in fisheries management but fall short of accepting ILK as a valid complementary way of knowing about fisheries systems. This synthesis reveals that development and increased opportunities are needed to bridge ILK and quantitative scientific data.</p>","PeriodicalId":169,"journal":{"name":"Fish and Fisheries","volume":"25 4","pages":"647-671"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New directions for Indigenous and local knowledge research and application in fisheries science: Lessons from a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin L. H. Jones,&nbsp;Rolando O. Santos,&nbsp;W. Ryan James,&nbsp;Sophia V. Costa,&nbsp;Aaron J. Adams,&nbsp;Ross E. Boucek,&nbsp;Lucy Coals,&nbsp;Leanne C. Cullen-Unsworth,&nbsp;Samuel Shephard,&nbsp;Jennifer S. Rehage\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/faf.12831\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Social-ecological systems like fisheries provide food, livelihoods and recreation. However, lack of data and its integration into governance hinders their conservation and management. Stakeholders possess site-specific knowledge crucial for confronting these challenges. There is increasing recognition that Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) is valuable, but structural differences between ILK and quantitative archetypes have stalled the assimilation of ILK into fisheries management, despite acknowledged bias and uncertainty in scientific methods. Conducting a systematic review of fisheries-associated ILK research (<i>n</i> = 397 articles), we examined how ILK is accessed, applied, distributed across space and species, and has evolved. We show that ILK has generated qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative information for diverse taxa across 98 countries. Fisheries-associated ILK research mostly targets small-scale and artisanal fishers (70% of studies) and typically uses semi-structured interviews (60%). We revealed large variability in sample size (<i>n</i> = 4–7638), predicted by the approach employed and the data generated (i.e. qualitative studies target smaller groups). Using thematic categorisation, we show that scientists are still exploring techniques, or ‘validating’ ILK through comparisons with quantitative scientific data (20%), and recording qualitative information of what fishers understand (40%). A few researchers are applying quantitative social science methods to derive trends in abundance, catch and effort. Such approaches facilitate recognition of local insight in fisheries management but fall short of accepting ILK as a valid complementary way of knowing about fisheries systems. This synthesis reveals that development and increased opportunities are needed to bridge ILK and quantitative scientific data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":169,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fish and Fisheries\",\"volume\":\"25 4\",\"pages\":\"647-671\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fish and Fisheries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12831\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FISHERIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fish and Fisheries","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12831","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FISHERIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

渔业等社会生态系统提供食物、生计和娱乐。然而,缺乏数据并将其纳入治理工作,阻碍了对它们的保护和管理。利益相关者拥有对应对这些挑战至关重要的特定地点知识。人们越来越认识到土著和地方知识(ILK)的价值,但土著和地方知识与定量原型之间的结构性差异阻碍了将土著和地方知识纳入渔业管理,尽管科学方法中存在公认的偏见和不确定性。我们对与渔业相关的ILK研究(n = 397篇文章)进行了系统回顾,考察了ILK的获取、应用、跨空间和物种分布以及演变情况。我们发现,ILK为98个国家的不同类群提供了定性、半定量和定量信息。与渔业相关的 ILK 研究大多以小型和个体渔民为目标(70% 的研究),通常采用半结构式访谈(60%)。我们发现样本量(n = 4-7638)存在很大差异,这是由所采用的方法和所产生的数据(即定性研究以较小的群体为目标)所预测的。通过主题分类,我们发现科学家仍在探索技术,或通过与定量科学数据的比较来 "验证 "ILK(20%),以及记录渔民所理解的定性信息(40%)。少数研究人员正在应用定量社会科学方法来得出丰度、渔获量和努力量的趋势。这些方法有助于在渔业管理中认识当地的洞察力,但还不足以接受ILK作为了解渔业系统的有效补充方式。本综述显示,需要发展和增加机会,将ILK与定量科学数据联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
New directions for Indigenous and local knowledge research and application in fisheries science: Lessons from a systematic review

Social-ecological systems like fisheries provide food, livelihoods and recreation. However, lack of data and its integration into governance hinders their conservation and management. Stakeholders possess site-specific knowledge crucial for confronting these challenges. There is increasing recognition that Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) is valuable, but structural differences between ILK and quantitative archetypes have stalled the assimilation of ILK into fisheries management, despite acknowledged bias and uncertainty in scientific methods. Conducting a systematic review of fisheries-associated ILK research (n = 397 articles), we examined how ILK is accessed, applied, distributed across space and species, and has evolved. We show that ILK has generated qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative information for diverse taxa across 98 countries. Fisheries-associated ILK research mostly targets small-scale and artisanal fishers (70% of studies) and typically uses semi-structured interviews (60%). We revealed large variability in sample size (n = 4–7638), predicted by the approach employed and the data generated (i.e. qualitative studies target smaller groups). Using thematic categorisation, we show that scientists are still exploring techniques, or ‘validating’ ILK through comparisons with quantitative scientific data (20%), and recording qualitative information of what fishers understand (40%). A few researchers are applying quantitative social science methods to derive trends in abundance, catch and effort. Such approaches facilitate recognition of local insight in fisheries management but fall short of accepting ILK as a valid complementary way of knowing about fisheries systems. This synthesis reveals that development and increased opportunities are needed to bridge ILK and quantitative scientific data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Fish and Fisheries
Fish and Fisheries 农林科学-渔业
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
6.00%
发文量
83
期刊介绍: Fish and Fisheries adopts a broad, interdisciplinary approach to the subject of fish biology and fisheries. It draws contributions in the form of major synoptic papers and syntheses or meta-analyses that lay out new approaches, re-examine existing findings, methods or theory, and discuss papers and commentaries from diverse areas. Focal areas include fish palaeontology, molecular biology and ecology, genetics, biochemistry, physiology, ecology, behaviour, evolutionary studies, conservation, assessment, population dynamics, mathematical modelling, ecosystem analysis and the social, economic and policy aspects of fisheries where they are grounded in a scientific approach. A paper in Fish and Fisheries must draw upon all key elements of the existing literature on a topic, normally have a broad geographic and/or taxonomic scope, and provide general points which make it compelling to a wide range of readers whatever their geographical location. So, in short, we aim to publish articles that make syntheses of old or synoptic, long-term or spatially widespread data, introduce or consolidate fresh concepts or theory, or, in the Ghoti section, briefly justify preliminary, new synoptic ideas. Please note that authors of submissions not meeting this mandate will be directed to the appropriate primary literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信