Evidence of bias in assessment of fisheries management impacts

Slooten, Elisabeth; Simmons, Glenn; Dawson, Stephen M.; Bremner, Graeme; Thrush, Simon F.; Whittaker, Hugh; McCormack, Fiona; Robertson, Bruce C.; Haworth, Nigel; Clarke, P.; Pauly, Daniel; Zeller, Dirk

doi:10.1073/pnas.1706544114

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some heuristics also reinforce other components of the panacea mindset. The halo effect can amplify the influence of conceptual narratives, as people who already believe that ITQs will work are more likely to judge them as effective (122). Confirmation bias works in a similar way, ensuring that people accept information that confirms their prior beliefs while disregarding information that contradicts those beliefs, regardless of its veracity in either case.…”

Section: Heuristics and Biasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving beyond panaceas in fisheries governance

Young

Webster

Cox

et al. 2018

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In fisheries management-as in environmental governance more generally-regulatory arrangements that are thought to be helpful in some contexts frequently become panaceas or, in other words, simple formulaic policy prescriptions believed to solve a given problem in a wide range of contexts, regardless of their actual consequences. When this happens, management is likely to fail, and negative side effects are common. We focus on the case of individual transferable quotas to explore the panacea mindset, a set of factors that promote the spread and persistence of panaceas. These include conceptual narratives that make easy answers like panaceas seem plausible, power disconnects that create vested interests in panaceas, and heuristics and biases that prevent people from accurately assessing panaceas. Analysts have suggested many approaches to avoiding panaceas, but most fail to conquer the underlying panacea mindset. Here, we suggest the codevelopment of an institutional diagnostics toolkit to distill the vast amount of information on fisheries governance into an easily accessible, open, on-line database of checklists, case studies, and related resources. Toolkits like this could be used in many governance settings to challenge users' understandings of a policy's impacts and help them develop solutions better tailored to their particular context. They would not replace the more comprehensive approaches found in the literature but would rather be an intermediate step away from the problem of panaceas.

show abstract

Section: Heuristics and Biasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving beyond panaceas in fisheries governance

Young

Webster

Cox

et al. 2018

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Slooten et al (1) claim the survey respondents from New Zealand, one of 28 countries considered in our paper in PNAS (2), were strongly biased toward the fishing industry. The six survey responses comprised a range of background experience: three government/science respondents (added here as coauthors), including the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research's Chief Scientist-Fisheries, the government's Principal Advisor-Fisheries Science, and an independent consultant working with government and the fishing industry; one (anonymous) university respondent; one (anonymous) environmental-nongovernmental organization (NGO) respondent; and a pair of respondents who consult for industry and collectively have experience in the seafood sector and community/environmental NGOs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Slooten et al (1) highlight several challenges in New Zealand, which apply to many other fisheries around the world. However, they fail to recognize the positioning of New Zealand systems within a global context, as exemplified by comparative analyses (2,4).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reply to Slooten et al.: Viewing fisheries management challenges in a global context

Melnychuk

Hilborn

Elliott

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It can be undertaken without detailed data to develop a preliminary understanding about the governance issues [80]. In this assessment there is a risk of bias and incoherence due to limited information sources and focus of expertise [81,82]. Experts' bias can be reduced through open discussions between assessors about how they scored [82].…”

Section: Select Assessorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governance mapping: A framework for assessing the adaptive capacity of marine resource governance to environmental change

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TMarine social-ecological systems are influenced by the way humans interact with their environment, and external forces, which change and re-shape the environment. In many regions, exploitation of marine resources and climate change are two of the primary drivers shifting the abundance and distribution of marine living resources, with negative effects on marine-dependent communities. Governance systems determine 'who' makes decisions, 'what' are their powers and responsibilities, and 'how' they are exercised. Understanding the connections between the actors comprising governance systems and influences between governance and the environment is therefore critical to support successful transitions to novel forms of governance required to deal with environmental changes. The paper provides an analytical framework with a practical example from Vanuatu, for mapping and assessment of the governance system providing for management of coral reef fish resources. The framework enables a rapid analysis of governance systems to identify factors that can encourage, or hinder, the adaptation of communities to changes in abundance or availability of marine resources.

show abstract

Evidence of bias in assessment of fisheries management impacts

Cited by 10 publications

References 3 publications

Moving beyond panaceas in fisheries governance

Moving beyond panaceas in fisheries governance

Reply to Slooten et al.: Viewing fisheries management challenges in a global context

Governance mapping: A framework for assessing the adaptive capacity of marine resource governance to environmental change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About