Marine Policy 134 (2021) 104797

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Full length article

Reef fisher perceptions acknowledge the socio-environmental effectiveness

of a 20-year old Brazilian Marine Protected Area
Márcio Luiz Vargas Barbosa Filho a, *, Gabriel Barros Gonçalves de Souza b, c,
Sérgio de Faria Lopes d, Rachel Ann Hauser-Davis e, Salvatore Siciliano f, José da Silva Mourão d
a
Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Programa de Pós-graduação em Etnobiologia e Conservação da Natureza, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Campus
Dois Irmãos, 52171-900 Recife, PE, Brazil
b
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Laboratório de Biologia e Tecnologia Pesqueira (BioTecPesca), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Carlos Chagas
Filho, 373, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Bloco A, Instituto de Biologia, Ilha do Fundão, 21944-970 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
c
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Desenvolvimento Regional e Urbano, Universidade Salvador, Rua Doutor José Peroba, 251, STIEP, 41770-235 Salvador, BA, Brazil
d
Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, Rua Baraúnas, 351, Bairro Universitário, 58429-500 Campina Grande, PB, Brazil
e
Laboratório de Avaliação e Promoção a Saúde Ambiental, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz/Fiocruz, Av. Brasil, 4.365, Manguinhos, 21040-360 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
f
Laboratório de Enterobactérias (Labent)/Instituto Oswaldo Cruz/Fiocruz, Pavilhão Rocha Lima, 3º. andar, Av. Brasil, 4.365 Manguinhos, 21040-900 Rio de Janeiro,
RJ, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Understanding how Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) affect the environment and society is a priority target.
Local ecological knowledge Herein, 198 beneficiaries were interviewed to assess their perceptions regarding a Brazilian MPA. Most re­
Small-scale fishing spondents noticed positive welfare and environmental changes due to the MPA, although outsider fishing activity
Fishing territory
is still the most recorded complaint. Respondents also positively perceived no-take zones. A significant number of
Abrolhos
Brazil
fishers exhibited higher Fisher’s Perception Indicator (FPI) values. Negative perceptions were mostly observed in
communities close to MPA borders. These findings represent a showcase in favor of MPAs that consider the
sustainable use of fishery resources.

1. Introduction through different methodological approaches [9]. In this sense, despite

A continuous worsening of issues affecting world marine fisheries
have been noted in recent years, mainly due to fishing resource de­
pletions, environmental coastal area degradation and a historic in­
efficiency of activity management strategies [1]. Tin this regard, the
establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) represents one of the
main alternatives to reverse this situation [2,3]. Therefore, in­
vestigations concerning the effectiveness of MPAs regarding marine
environment and fishing resource management is a highly relevant and
crucial topic. However, despite several studies proving the feasibility of
MPAs in protecting coastal and marine environments [4–6], debates on
their effectiveness in achieving its social and ecological goals are still
observed [7,8].
In this regard, scientists have developed a multitude of mechanisms
and approaches to investigate MPA effectiveness. For example, several
studies have addressed the relationships between fishers and MPAs
recognizing that MPA link ecological and social dynamics [10,11], re­
searchers have historically focused on ecological methodologies to
assess the influence of fishing activities on environmental MPA effec­
tiveness. Several assessments have pointed out conflicts and fishing
impacts in MPAs, which potentially contribute to their effectiveness as a
marine conservation tool [12–14]. In contrast, marine ecology studies
have demonstrated, for example, that No Take Zone MPAs have the
potential to contribute to the spillover effect [6,15], which can, in turn,
result in increasing fisher incomes from fishing activities carried out in
MPA-adjacent areas [16–18].
Scientific research, especially in the last two decades, has increas­
ingly focused on the human dimension of MPAs [11,19]. Therefore,
methodological approaches concerning human and social sciences based
on interviews have been applied to assess the social MPA legacy
considering stakeholder well-being, addressing the knowledge, percep­
tions, attitudes and behaviors of different stakeholders concerning social

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: titobiomar@hotmail.com (M.L.V. Barbosa Filho), gabrielbbarros@gmail.com (G.B.G. Souza), defarialopes@gmail.com (S.F. Lopes), rachel.
hauser.davis@gmail.com (R.A. Hauser-Davis), gemmlagos@gmail.com (S. Siciliano), tramataia@gmail.com (J.S. Mourão).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104797
Received 15 March 2021; Received in revised form 6 August 2021; Accepted 12 September 2021
0308-597X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.L.V. Barbosa Filho et al.
and environmental MPA impacts [9,12,20–23]. Findings reveal, for
example, that fishers tend to accept and follow the rules of sustainable
use MPAs more easily than those No Take Zones MPAs [see 9].
Since fishing activities has influences even in restricted-use MPAs
[11], investigating fisher knowledge, feelings, and perceptions is critical
to the success of these management tools [24,25]. Furthermore, the high
number and diversity of MPA types, as well their different cultural
contexts, generate a variety of results that represent a valuable oppor­
tunity to evaluate MPA limitations and successes in achieving ecological
sustainability and social well-being goals [26]. Scientists have assessed
MPA effectiveness through the rich local ecological knowledge (LEK)
framework of fishers concerning marine ecosystems. LEK refers to the
knowledge developed by certain human groups concerning local eco­
systems from a complex network of human-environment interactions
[27]. Studies that scientifically address fisher LEK are especially
necessary in developing countries, given that fisheries in these areas
tend to be poor in scientific information supporting an adequate marine
environment governance [28,29]. Thus, evidence-based assessments
associated to MPA effectiveness in recent years have focused on fisher
perceptions [30].
In fact, studies focusing on the perceptions of traditional human
groups in relation to the environment can obtain relevant data associ­
ated to ecological impacts and conservation results, the legitimacy of
governance processes and the potential of acceptability and adherence
to management rules by involved parties [30]. In this sense, scientific
research focusing on fisher MPA perceptions has evidenced a multitude
of positive [5,31,32], as well as negative [30,33,34] impacts on coastal
population welfare and marine environment conservation.
Twelve Conservation Units categories are listed in Brazil, one of them
comprising Extractive Reserves, aimed at protecting traditional popu­
lation cultures and livelihoods while also ensuring the sustainable use of
natural resources [35–37]. Marine Extractive Reserves (MERs) are
noteworthy as the most significant effort supported by the Brazilian
government to protect the common property resources that traditional
fishers depend on. This MPA category exhibits a deliberative beneficiary
participation character, giving these social actors the chance to become
protagonists concerning decisions associated to resource use and con­
servation, as well as in management rule designation [35,36]. However,
although MERs comprise a community-based protected area model
based on a co-management system, several legal conflicts are still noted,
due to current Brazilian legislation [22]. In addition, few assessments on
the efficiency of this MPA model are available in the country [38].
The Marine Extractive Reserve of Corumbau (MERC) is one of the
most important Brazilian MPAs, as it is located in an ecologically rele­
vant region. The idea of establishing an MPA in this region originated
from native fishers in the second half of the 1990 s, claiming serious
social, cultural and, mainly, environmental damage caused by what they
termed "the invasion of outside boats" [36]. As stated by Moura et al.
[36], these fishers demanded the creation of an Extractive Reserve (ER)
conservation unit due to the unfair fishing competitive scenario and
overfishing signs. The invasion of outside boats to this area began in the
late 1980s, when medium and large vessels from neighboring cities and
even from other Brazilian states began to operate in the coastal zone of
this MERC area, resulting in environmental impacts due to the use of
non-selective fishing gear and various social disorders in local commu­
nities [39]. Thus, the MERC MPA was established with the aim of
safeguarding the livelihood and culture of the local native extractive
population, whose well-being is intrinsically linked to sustainable
resource use.
Even 20 years after MERC implementation, scarce data concerning
its effectiveness is available. Moura et al. [36] pointed out a lack of basic
information regarding the MERC’s socioeconomic effectiveness in
improving the welfare of beneficiary families. In turn, only one study
concerning the effectiveness of this MPA on the protection of fishery
resources is available, carried out by Francini-Filho and Moura [40],
focusing on the influence of no-take zones on reef fish abundance. Given
2
Marine Policy 134 (2021) 104797
this context, the present study aimed to analyze MERC beneficiary
perceptions regarding to its socio-environmental effectiveness, to create
a baseline concerning this issue at this MPA 20 years after its estab­
lishment. The research was driven by the following main questions: (i)
“How do fishers perceive personal and environmental changes possibly
caused by the MERC?”; and (ii) “Would fisher perceptions be different ac­
cording to their distance from MERC borders?”. The hypothesis was that
fishers living close to MERC borders would present worse perceptions
than those living in more distant communities. To address these ques­
tions, a Fishers’ Perception Indicator (FPI) was developed to more
comprehensively integrate the metrics assessed in this study.
2. Data and methods
2.1. Study area
The Marine Extractive Reserve of Corumbau (MERC), located on the
Brazilian east coast, is established at the northern end of the Abrolhos
Ocean Banks (Fig. 1). This is the main biodiversity hotspots in the
tropical South Atlantic and contains the largest coral reef formations in
Brazil (8844 km2) [41]. The Abrolhos Ocean Banks are noteworthy for
their strategic relevance in reef fish fishing, as they house relatively
large populations of marine species displaying high commercial value,
such as whiting, grouper, redfish, lobsters, shrimp and crab [42]. On the
other hand, fishing in the region is not yet well-characterized, is mul­
tispecific, and lacks systematic and structured programs for environ­
mental and fisheries monitoring [43]. A mosaic of Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs) covers the Abrolhos Ocean Banks region, especially the
Abrolhos National Marine Park, in addition to the Cassurubá and
Corumbau Marine Extraction Reserves [36].
The MERC was established in 2000 and occupies 900 km2, extending
62 km from the coast, located between the municipalities of Prado and
Porto Seguro [44] and reaching eight nautical miles towards the open
sea. Approximately 650 families are MERC beneficiaries, essentially
indigenous Pataxó individuals and their descendants [45]. The main
economic activities in the area comprise tourism, family farming and
fishing, the latter taking place mainly in reefs and unconsolidated sub­
strate areas, through the use of hand lines, surface longlines, harpoons
and different types of nets, as well as motorized seine fishing [39].
Subsistence fishing is predominant in the region, with eventual surplus
sales. However, some fishers target their catches aiming specifically at
sales to local inns and restaurants.
The MERC’s Deliberative Council usually meets every three months,
made up of representatives from fishing communities, organized civil
society, non-governmental organizations and public entities [36]. This
MPA also has a Use Plan, approved in 2003 [46]. The main fisheries
management strategies established in this document are associated to
the prohibition of certain fishing gears within the MPA, resource capture
effort restrictions and the establishment of certain gear-restricted areas
and no-take zones, as well as fishing landing monitoring, aiming an
adaptive management [47]. Currently, a new fishing landing system is in
planning stages and the MERC Management Plan, a document that
governs the management of Brazilian Conservation Units [35], is in its
final preparation stages.
2.2. Data sampling
Semi-structured interviews [48] were applied to 198 MERC benefi­
ciaries, comprising 193 men and five women. The survey (Supplemen­
tary Material) contained questions focused on the interviewees’
perceptions regarding the MERC. The interviews took place during 90
non-consecutive days, between April 2017 and February 2018. Fishers
were individually interviewed, to prevent the influence of other in­
dividuals. The same researcher conducted all interviews. In addition, all
interview audios were recorded using a digital voice recorder, totaling
164 h, with each interview lasting from 23 to 135 min (averaging
M.L.V. Barbosa Filho et al.
Fig. 1. Geographic location of the sampled fishing communities in the Marine Extractive Reserve of Corumbau (MERC).
50 min). The interviews took place in eleven communities in the two
municipalities that make up the MERC.
Inclusion criteria for research participants comprised being over 18
years of age and conducting boat fishing at the MERC. The sample design
consisted in a researcher visit to main local leaders, who indicated the
names of potential community collaborators who fit the established
participant profile. With this name list in hands, the researcher visited
community fishing spots and the homes of possible participants. Data
collection was facilitated since a rapport was already in place between
the researcher and the fishing communities [49]. The interview accep­
tance rate was 98.5%, as only three fishers preferred not to be inter­
viewed. The sample size was established according to Bernard [50],
considered representative at a 5% confidence interval in anthropology
field studies.
2.3. Fishers’ Perception Indicator development
Most previous studies on fisher perceptions regarding MPAs have
evaluated each assessed metric individually [51,52], without calcu­
lating a single value. Herein, based on a similar perspective that justifies
the development of biotic multimetric indices [see [53]], a Fishers’
Perception Indicator (FPI) was developed to understand how benefi­
ciaries perceive the MERC’s influence in their lives and to the environ­
ment. The main goal was to integrate the assessed metrics under a more
comprehensive approach to provide general information concerning
fisher perceptions. Responses for the following four questions were in­
tegrated: (i) “Do you think the MERC has positively or negatively affected
fisher lives?”; (ii) “Do you think the MERC has positively or negatively
affected the marine environment you fish in?”; (iii) “Do you think the MERC
is adequately preventing local activities that should not take place?”; and (iv)
“Do you think that no-take zones are effective?”. A score 0 or 1 was
attributed to negative or positive effects noticed by fishers in each
question, respectively. For instance, regarding changes in fisher welfare
and in the environment, the score 0 was attributed to those that not
perceived changes and 1 to the reported changes. On the other hand,
regarding activities that should not occur, the reported activities were
tagged with score 0, while the non-existence of these activities received
the score 1. The FPI was then estimated as the average for the attributed
scores. The final values range from 0 to 1, indicating negative percep­
tions for values close to 0 and positive perceptions for values close to 1.
3
Marine Policy 134 (2021) 104797
The developed FPI follows a straightforward procedure that can be
easily replicated and adapted by incorporating more metrics. The ob­
tained FPI scores were used as the predictor and response variables for
the statistical analyses, described in the following Section.
2.4. Data analysis
Most data were analyzed based on descriptive statistics by applying
quantitative methods. This involved calculating the absolute and rela­
tive frequencies of fisher quotes regarding their knowledge, attitudes,
and perceptions regarding MERC effectiveness. A Generalized Additive
Model (GAM) was used as a complementary approach to provide a
statistical inference (p value) considering the integrated FPI values. It
aimed to statistically test whether the expected pattern takes place and
whether it is significant, by integrating all the metrics described by the
descriptive statistics and so increasing analysis robustness. Thus, the
GAM analysis was performed to test the following relationships: (i) FPI
scores and number of fishers in each score; and (ii) distance from MERC
borders and FPI scores. It was assumed that most fishers would present
higher FPIs, and that higher FPI scores would be observed in commu­
nities more distant from MERC borders. GAMs, based on non-parametric
functions (i.e., smooth functions), were applied as they allow for the
identification of nonlinear relationships between explanatory and
response variables in modeling situations [54,55]. As nonlinear effects
were expected, GAM was the most adequate statistical analysis choice,
as these effects could not be adequately addressed by other analytical
approaches (e.g. ANOVA, Linear Regression). Graphical residual ana­
lyses were used to validate the GAM models [54]. Estimated GAM
smoothing curves were also built to represent the relationship between
the FPI scores and the number of fishers in each FPI category, as well as
between distance from MERC borders and FPI scores. All analyses were
carried out employing the mgcv package available in the R software,
version 3.6.1 [56,57].
2.5. Legal procedure compliance
This study was approved by the Universidade Federal Rural de Per­
nambuco Research Ethics Committee (CEP - Comitê de Ética em Pesquisas)
for research with humans (code: CAAE 65458016.0.0000.5207). The
research project was also registered (authentication code number
M.L.V. Barbosa Filho et al. Marine Policy 134 (2021) 104797

33794187) at the Brazilian System for the Authorization of Information Table 1

on Biodiversity (SISBIO - Sistema de Autorização e Informação em Bio­ Positive and negative fisher opinions (n = 271) on the MERC’s existence.
diversidade), as required by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and AF = absolute frequency; RF = relative frequency.
Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA - Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Positive opinions AF (RF %)
Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis), at the National System for It removed outside fishers who destroyed the area 115 (42.4)
Management of Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge It increased nature protection 79 (29.2)
(SISGEN - Sistema Nacional de Gestão do Patrimônio Genético e do Con­ It increased fisher protection 57 (21)
hecimento Tradicional Associado) (registration number AB5B87A). The It increased native politicization/awareness 10 (3.7)
Negative opinions
principal investigator was allowed admission into the indigenous area
It brought prohibitions through rules 4 (1.5)
(Terra Indígena Barra Velha do Povo Pataxó) by the National Indian Many promises were not kept 1 (0.4)
Foundation (FUNAI - Fundação Nacional do Índio) (code 111/AAEP/ Fishers from Barra Velha persecute those from Corumbau 1 (0.4)
PRES/2017). It removed outside trucks that bought fish 1 (0.4)
It increased conflict between natives 1 (0.4)
It forbade natives to make money from tourism 1 (0.4)
3. Results The MERC only serves to raise money from the government 1 (0.4)

3.1. General issues

Fishers were first asked about the MERC’s function and the reason
this MPA exists. Eighteen fishers were unable to answer this question,
while 180 (91%) respondents who pointed out the MERC’s functions
gave 288 opinions. These opinions were grouped in four different
response categories and the number of fishers in each FPI category was
recorded. Most fishers stated that the MERC acts to preserve nature
(46.5%) and protect fishers (34.4%), while some argued that the MERC
is important to ban outside fishers (18.8%) (Fig. 2). Only one fisher
stated that the MERC cause conflicts among fishers and does not
contribute to their social cohesion.
Subsequently, fishers were asked about their opinion regarding the
MERC’s existence. Most fishers (n = 187; 94.4%) stated that this MPA is
either good or excellent. Five fishers pointed out positive and negative
points, four indicated that its existence is a bad thing, and only two were
indifferent. From overall 271 opinions, a total of 261 were in favor of
MERC and 10 against it (Table 1). Among the positive opinions, most
interviewees (42.4%) stated that the MERC contributed to hinder the
activities of outside fishers who used to practice predatory fishing, fol­
lowed by those who argued that the MPA increased local nature (29.2%)
and fisher (21%) protection. Negative opinions were mostly represented
by fishers who stated that the MPA implemented prohibitions through
rules not beneficial for their socioprofessional category (1.5%).
3.2. Perceptions concerning socio-environmental MERC effectiveness
Concerning the socio-environmental effectiveness of this MPA,
fishers were initially asked about their perceptions on the MERC’s in­
fluence in changing the environment and fisher welfare. A total of 29
fishers (14.6%) did not notice changes in their welfare after the MERC
was implemented and four did not know how to answer this question.
Most respondents (n = 169; 85.4%), however, did notice changes in
their welfare and reported 275 opinions, 271 (98.5%) indicating posi­
tive changes and only four (1.5%) negative (Table 2). From the positive
opinions, similarly as previously described for general issues (Section
3.1), most fishers (31.6% from total opinions) argued that the MERC
contributed to prohibit outside fisher activities, followed by those who
stated that the MPA increased fish yields (17.5%), and enhanced fisher
(13.1%) and nature (11.3%) protection. Negative opinions were, again,
mostly linked to prohibitions hindering native fishing activities (1.1%).
Most fishers (n = 170; 85.9%) indicated environmental changes
after MERC implementation. When asked how they perceived these
environmental changes, fishers reported 242 positive issues (Table 3).
The reported perceptions comprised the following: the MERC aided in
preserving the area (33.6%), stopped predatory activities of outside
boats (30.4%), and led to fish stock increases (15.8%). Twenty-eight
fishers (14.1%) pointed out that nothing has changed in the environ­
ment after the MERC implementation, and only six were unable to
answer the question. Those who did not notice environmental changes
attributed this to eleven reasons, the most mentioned reason being the
fact that no supervision to prevent illegal activity is performed (2.8%).
Fishers were also asked whether they currently perceive activities or
situations regarding MERC fishing that they understand as wrong (or
illegal). Most (n = 147; 74.2%) revealed several situations that should
not take place, while 51 (25.8%) indicated that there is nothing wrong
with local fishing, and another six did not know how to answer. Among
situations fishers consider inappropriate, some mentioned more than
one example, encompassing 233 opinions (Table 4). The most
mentioned opinion was that outside boats still invade the MPA (30%),
followed by the persistence of illegal fishing (10.7%), lack of supervision
(9.9%), and rule breaches (9.4%). Bottom trawling was a specific fishing
Table 2
Positive and negative perceptions concerning the ways (n = 275) that MERC
altered interviewee lives (n = 169 fishers).
Positive Perceptions N %

It prohibited the action of outside fishers in the region 87 31.6

It yields more fish today 48 17.5
Native fisher protection has increased 36 13.1
Nature protection has increased 31 11.3
It brought benefits to native fishers 20 7.3
It brought rights to native fishers 15 5.5
It provided knowledge to the natives 11 4
It made native fishers more aware 9 3.3
It subsidized a better organized fishing 8 2.9
It valued fish, as fewer people fish today 2 0.7
It organized the fishers 2 0.7
Today, only natives gain from tourism 2 0.7
Negative Perceptions
It brought prohibitions that hampered native fishing 3 1.1
It forbade cattle breeding and harmed those who raised it 1 0.4
Total 275 100
Fig. 2. Number of fisher opinions (n = 288) concerning MERC functions.

4
M.L.V. Barbosa Filho et al. Marine Policy 134 (2021) 104797

Table 3 integrated, and the Fishers’ Perception Indicator revealed a significantly

Fisher perceptions (n = 253) concerning environmental changes and non- higher number of fishers in each upper FPI category (p < 0.001),
changes resulting from the MERC implementation. perceiving positive MERC effects on their lives and to the environment
Arguments related to environmental change N % (see GAM curves in Fig. 3). This demonstrated that most fishers stated
The MERC aided in preserving the area 85 33.6
positive perceptions concerning the MPA, as 73.2% (n = 145) exhibited
The outside boats that destroyed the area were driven out 77 30.4 a FPI score ranging from 0.7 to 1. In addition, higher FPI values were
The amounts of fish are increasing 40 15.8 significantly observed (p < 0.001) in communities located farther from
The MERC prevented outside boats from continuing their destruction 16 6.3 the MERC borders, while a higher number of low FPI scores were
The MERC rules prevent wrong things from happening 12 4.7
observed for fishers living close to the MERC borders (Fig. 4). Cumu­
Increased fish breeding is occurring after the MERC implementation 5 2.0
The MERC made fishers more aware 3 1.2 ruxatiba, the last community of the MERC’s southern border (see Fig. 1),
Shrimp are gathering again after the MERC implementation 2 0.8 exhibited the highest incidence of low FPI values. This community
The sandbanks (restinga) are more protected 2 0.8 encompassed most fishers with FPI scores calculated as 0 (66.7% of the
Arguments related to environmental non-change total fishers displaying this score), 0.3 (54.2%), and 0.5 (25%).
There is no supervision to prevent wrong things from happening 7 2.8
Fish continue to decline 2 0.8
Nobody respects the rules 1 0.4 4. Discussion
The trawl net continues to destroy nature 1 0.4
Total 253 100
4.1. General remarks

This assessment approached the knowledge, attitudes and percep­

Table 4 tions of beneficiaries from a Brazilian MPA regarding socio-
Fisher opinions (n = 233) in relation to situations that should not occur at the environmental benefits achieved twenty years after its establishment.
MERC but are still observed. The strong support from fishers represents a showcase in favor of MPAs,
Fishing situations that should not occur at the MERC N % a fisheries management instrument displaying the potential to maintain
Invasion of outside boats 70 30 the culture of small-scale fishers in the face of pressures and impacts
Illegal fishing 25 10.7 from industrial fishing and large economic enterprises [58,59]. This is
Lack of supervision 23 9.9 even more important when one considers that a disintegration process of
Rule breaches 22 9.4 the formerly internationally applauded Brazilian environmental policies
Shrimp trawling 16 6.9
Disunity among fishers 9 3.9
taken root in the last years [60–62]. In this context, small-scale fishing
Lack of incentives for fishers 7 3 seems to be the last of the Brazilian government’s priorities [63].
Corumbau people trawling in front of the community 6 2.6 The obtained data represent new evidence that, even though sig­
Mobile outsider nets that remove native nets 5 2.1 nificant socioeconomic and cultural transformations took place for
Beach access closure by those who buy land on the beach/ Lost 4/ 1.7/
fishers [64], they have been politically organized. It is recognized that
or abandoned nets on reefs that kill animals each each
People who do not fish posing as fishers to gain benefits/People 3/ 1.3/ involvement in management decisions is crucial for greater cohesion
posing as beneficiaries even without having the rights/ each each and resilience of local populations to socio-environmental changes,
Eucalyptus plantations drying out springs, dams and wells/ while also increasing the chances of successful governance [65–67].
Foreign fishers who steal native nets Moura et al. [36] pointed out that the MERC contributed to a greater
Rules being imposed in the wrong way/Anchors placed on the 2/ 0.9/
reefs/MERC headquarters are located far from the MERC/ each each
politicization and awareness of the beneficiary public. According to
The fishing rules are very weak/Foreign fishers selling fish in Whitehouse and Fowler [68], arrangements that have government
MERC communities/Danger due to eucalyptus barges support for appropriately sized teams and funding display a generally
passing through native fishing areas positive influence on the socioeconomic indicators of assessed
Lack of communication within the community/Fisher 1/ 0.4/
communities.
selfishness in wanting to catch all the fish/Irresponsible each each
nautical traffic on rivers/Few fisher access to information
concerning MERC rules/Leadership of communities that do
not share the benefits/Few employees working at MERC/
Risk of fishing without documents, as the Brazilian
government currently does not make new fisher documents/
Very strict MERC rules/MERC employees wanting to decide
without understanding fishing/Cattle being raised in river
sources/Natives who are against the MERC are also against
the idea of a land MERC/Cars that illegally roam the
beaches/Inspection officers who point guns at native fishers
during boarding at sea/Difficulty in selling fish production/
Pesticides from eucalyptus plantations destroy river springs
and mangroves/Benefits are poorly distributed within
communities/Eucalyptus barges that kills a lot of whales./
The presence of armed outside fishers within the MERC
causes native fear
Total 233 100

gear mentioned as something that should not take place at the MERC.
Finally, fishers were asked whether no-take zones are effective and if
they are working well for them. Half of the interviewees did not know
how to answer this question (n = 99 fishers). Among those who did,
most (72,7%; n = 72) stated it is an effective management approach,
while 27.3% (n = 27) affirmed that the no-take zones do not adequately Fig. 3. GAM estimated smoothing curves for the number of interviewed fishers
perform. and their respective Fishers’ Perception Indicator (FPI) concerning the MERC’s
The questions regarding fisher perceptions on the studied MPA were influence to society and the environment. Dashed lines represent 95% confi­
dence interval bands.

5
M.L.V. Barbosa Filho et al.
Fig. 4. GAM estimated smoothing curves for the Fishers’ Perception Indicator
(FPI) regarding distance (km) from the MERC borders. Dashed lines represent
95% confidence interval bands.
Fishers perceived positive MERC changes by indicating its role in
protecting nature and themselves. In fact, in Brazil, the National System
of Conservation Units informs that Extractive Reserves aim at the con­
servation of natural resources as well as in maintaining native pop­
ulations [21]. Thus, the positive views and feelings concerning the
MERC’s existence are aligned with their knowledge associated to the
basic goals of this kind of MPA. This association, in itself, represents an
indication of its effectiveness. Furthermore, banning most outside
fishers that regularly operated in the MPA area was preeminent con­
cerning the strong positive attitude of the interviewees regarding the
MERC. In fact, the need to banish fishers from other regions triggered
the MERC creation process, given the gravity of the situation local
fishers faced due to the presence of outsiders, as further discussed.
4.2. Socio-environmental MERC effectiveness
The interviewees’ positive attitudes seem to stem from their per­
ceptions of socio-environmental improvements arising from the MERC’s
establishment. Regarding positive social impacts, the significant
decrease in outside fisher activities is again noteworthy. In this sense,
increased fishing incomes and nature protection are often attributed to
the absence of “outsiders”, which use high fishing power vessels often
equipped with banned fishing equipment. In turn, the recognition of
positive social impacts due to the MERC is usually linked to the recog­
nition of positive environmental impacts and vice versa. Given that these
fishers are part of a socio-ecological system, this should not be surpris­
ing. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of MPAs is usually studied under a
purely biological approach, with MPAs that exclusively meet environ­
mental conservation goals being presented as “successes” [69,70]. On
the other hand, in the long run, social factors usually determine the
biological success of MPAs and, therefore, social science studies are
paramount in assessing the effectiveness of these management in­
struments [71].
Regarding environmental conservation, positive perceptions were
the most prevailing. The MERC’s prohibition concerning outside fisher
activities was also a crucial factor for this, as the interviewees refer to
these outsiders as “causing destruction”. Therefore, interviewees noted
increased fishing catches after the MERC’s implementation, reinforced
by the predominance of positive perceptions concerning no-take zones
as being effective. Francini-Filho and Moura [40] reported increased
biomasses of certain reef fish species at the MERC, and the spillover
effect within a no-take zone in an adjacent area. However, the limitation
6
Marine Policy 134 (2021) 104797
of biological data on the life history of commercial species for the
Abrolhos region still represents an obstacle for fisheries management
[42,43]. Therefore, the consolidation of a monitoring system for fishing
landings is required for the MERC, allowing for stock assessments of
exploited target species.
Despite high fisher satisfaction and the recognition of positive socio-
environmental impacts due to the MERC;s implementation, fishers still
indicate certain problems in the local socio-ecological system. A total of
39 different situations were pointed out that they believe damage their
welfare and/or the local environmental quality. Situations concerning
illegal marine fishing were the most noteworthy. Fishers also complain
of situations that, although not directly linked to fishing, make it diffi­
cult to reproduce their ways of life. In fact, the main long-term threats to
the maintenance of the biodiverse coastal and marine Abrolhos region
ecosystems are the non-implementation and non-compliance of the
existing MPA mosaic laws and regulations, as well as inefficient fisheries
management and major projects related to cellulose and oil industries
[42]. In fact, studies have pointed out that the issues cited by fishers,
such as those related to the low governmental capacity to enforce reg­
ulations and curb external socio-economic pressures, are crucial to the
inefficiency of MPAs worldwide [62,74,75].
Although the distinguished decreases in outsider invasion are note­
worthy, this still represents the most recurring complaint. Thus, fishers
pointed out that the lack of environmental inspection and monitoring
actions by the responsible agencies are the main reasons for occasional
and furtive outsider entrance in the MPA area, especially during the
night. In fact, several records of complaints by small-scale fishers
regarding the lack of environmental inspections that facilitate the work
of foreign fisher in their territories are noted along the southern coast of
Bahia state [36,43,73,76,77].
Due to the remaining outsider fishing activity, especially at the
MERC’s borders, beneficiaries who live and fish in these areas pointed
out situations they perceive as inadequate more frequently. Fishers from
Cumuruxatiba, located further south and 14 km away from the southern
MERC border, complained more about illegal fishing than other com­
munities. Surrounding municipalities outside the southern MERC re­
gion, even though historically comprising artisanal fisheries, are
currently the strongholds of fishers who carry out profitable and
impacting illegal fisheries [72]. In this regard, Barbosa-Filho et al. [73]
also reported complaints from local fishers against outsiders diving with
compressors close to the MERC borders. Unfortunately, after 20 years,
there is still no buffer zone protecting the MERC core area, which is
mandatory for this type of protected area in Brazil [35]. In view of the
current incipience of official discussions on the establishment of the
MERC’s buffer zone, it is suggested that local stakeholders organize
themselves to reinforce this ancient demand. The buffer zone estab­
lishment at the MERC may lead to a better integration into the Abrolhos
oceanic bank MPA mosaic and, consequently, to the conservation
effectiveness of the main biodiversity and endemism hotspot in the
South Atlantic [41].
With regard to MPAs established in Brazilian reef areas, a scarcity of
human and financial resources comprises the main limitation for their
effective contribution towards marine biodiversity conservation and
fisheries improvement [38]. The FAO [1] pointed out that unfair
competition from industrial fishers to small-scale fishers is one of the
main threats to the livelihoods and food security of these populations. In
turn, illegal fishing currently represents the main threat to the sustain­
able exploitation of global fisheries resources in developing countries
and to marine ecosystems [78], representing a serious impediment to
the success of fisheries management efforts [79]. In developing coun­
tries, the fight against illegal fishers must include the design of strong
policies and practical and organized actions that contribute to the
risk-benefit ratio for offenders [80,81]. For instance, a harsh and
effective fishing policy to combat illegal fishing from national and
foreign boats has been imposed in Indonesia [82], including ostensible
inspection actions, also including the deportation of foreign fishers, the
M.L.V. Barbosa Filho et al.
opening of criminal cases, the payment of high fines, and even vessel
sinking [82]. These practices should be a starting point to strengthening
MERC management policies, as well as at other MPAs.
5. Final remarks
Despite the lack of the Brazilian federal government’s organization
to effectively deal with the management of MPAs and artisanal fisheries,
strong MERC support among native fishers is still observed. The fact that
this MPA almost eliminated the presence of non-native fisher from the
MERC seems to be a major factor comprising fisher support. Therefore,
this MPA is a success case in battling large-scale fishing, especially
coastal activities, which have increasingly caused serious environmental
impacts and conflicts worldwide. Nevertheless, a challenge is noted for
the Brazilian government and for fishery managers to carry out coor­
dinated and interdisciplinary efforts to adapt the points that the inter­
viewed fishers believe require improvement. Additional MERC data
should be obtained, especially to further understand the influence of this
MPA on the life quality and well-being of its beneficiaries.
In a time of dissolution of the Brazilian environmental policies,
especially in recent years, positive fisher perception concerning the
MERC subsidizes the maintenance of Protected Areas throughout the
country, also reinforcing the benefits of sustainable use MPAs world­
wide. Under a global perspective, this success case points to the potential
for this type of MPA to contribute to the maintenance and resilience of
small-scale fisher’s societies in the face of overwhelming challenges
inherent to the Anthropocene.
CRediT authorship contribution Statement
MLVBF: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal
analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. GBGS: Formal analysis, Data curation, Visualization, Writing –
review & editing. SFL: Writing – review & editing. RAHD: Writing –
review & editing. SS: Writing – review & editing. JSM: Writing – review
& editing, Supervision.
Acknowledgments
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoa­
mento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.
Thanks to the Post-Graduation Ethnobiology and Nature Conservation
Program at the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco; Special thanks
go to all the fishers who participated in the study. SFL thanks CNPq for
the productivity grant he received.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that this scientific research does not involve any
conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104797.
References
[1] FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018, Meeting the sustainable
development goals, Rome, 2018.
[2] D.D. Chapman, M.J. Frisk, D.L. Abercrombie, C. Safina, S.H. Gruber, E.A. Babcock,
K.A. Feldheim, E.K. Pikitch, C. Ward-Paige, B. Davis, S. Kessel, M. Heithaus,
B. Worm, Give shark sanctuaries a chance, Science 339 (2013) 757.
[3] D.J. McCauley, M.L. Pinsky, S.R. Palumbi, J.A. Estes, F.H. Joyce, R.R. Warner,
Marine defaunation: animal loss in the global ocean, Science 347 (2015), 1255641.
[4] S. Lester, B. Halpern, K. Grorud-Colvert, J. Lubchenco, B. Ruttenberg, S. Gaines,
S. Airamé, R. Warner, Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global
synthesis, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 384 (2009) 33–46.
7
Marine Policy 134 (2021) 104797
[5] C.M. Roberts, B.C. O’leary, D.J. McCauley, P.M. Cury, C.M. Duarte, J. Lubchenco,
D. Pauly, A. Sáenz-Arroyo, U.R. Sumaila, R.W. Wilson, B. Worm, J.C. Castilla,
Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change, Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114 (2017) 6167–6175.
[6] E. Sala, S. Giakoumi, No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas
in the ocean, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75 (3) (2018) 1166–1168.
[7] G.J. Edgar, R.D. Stuart-Smith, T.J. Willis, S. Kininmonth, S.C. Baker, S. Banks, N.
S. Barrett, M.A. Becerro, A.T. Bernard, J. Berkhout, C.D. Buxton, S.J. Campbell, A.
T. Cooper, M. Davey, S.C. Edgar, G. Försterra, D.E. Galván, A.J. Irigoyen, D.
J. Kushner, R. Moura, P.E. Parnell, N.T. Shears, G. Soler, E.M. Strain, R.J. Thomson,
Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key
features, Nature 506 (2014) 216–220.
[8] D.A. Gill, M.B. Mascia, G.N. Ahmadia, L. Glew, S.E. Lester, M. Barnes, I. Craigie, E.
S. Darling, C.M. Free, J. Geldmann, S. Holst, O.P. Jensen, A.T. White, X. Basurto,
L. Coad, R.D. Gates, G. Guannel, P.J. Mumby, H. Thomas, S. Whitmee, S. Woodley,
H.E. Fox, Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas
globally, Nature 543 (2017) 665–669.
[9] C. Pita, G. Pierce, I. Theodossiou, K. Macpherson, An overview of commercial
fishers’ attitudes towards marine protected areas, Hydrobiologia 670 (2011)
289–306.
[10] T. Agardy, Information needs for marine protected areas: scientific and societal,
Science 66 (3) (2000) 875–888.
[11] J.E. Cinner, T.R. McClanahan, T.M. Daw, N.A. Graham, J. Maina, S.K. Wilson, T.
P. Hughes, Linking social and ecological systems to sustain coral reef fisheries,
Curr. Biol. 19 (2009) 206–212.
[12] S.J. Campbell, A.S. Hoey, J. Maynard, T. Kartawijaya, J. Cinner, N.A. Graham, A.
H. Baird, Weak compliance undermines the success of no-take zones in a large
government-controlled marine protected area, PLoS One 7 (2012) 50074.
[13] S. Yamazaki, E. Hoshino, B.P. Resosudarmo, No-take marine reserves and illegal
fishing under imperfect enforcement, Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 58 (2014) 1–21.
[14] B.P. Kelaher, A. Page, M. Dasey, D. Maguire, A. Read, A. Jordan, M.A. Coleman,
Strengthened enforcement enhances marine sanctuary performance, Glob. Ecol.
Conserv. 3 (2015) 503–510.
[15] R.A. Pelc, R.R. Warner, S.D. Gaines, C.B. Paris, Detecting larval export from marine
reserve, PNAS 107 (2010) 18266–18271.
[16] R.M. Starr, D.E. Wendt, C.L. Barnes, C.I. Marks, D. Malone, G. Waltz, K.T. Schmidt,
J. Chiu, A.L. Launer, N.C. Hall, N. Yochum, Variation in responses of fishes across
multiple reserves within a network of marine protected areas in temperate waters,
PLos One 10 (3) (2015), 0118502.
[17] R. Goñi, R. Hilborn, D. Díaz, S. Mallol, S. Adlerstein, Net contribution of spillover
from a marine reserve to fishery catches, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 400 (2010) 233–243.
[18] R. Goñi, S. Adlerstein, D. Alvarez-Berastegui, A. Forcada, O. Reñones, G. Criquet,
S. Polti, G. Cadiou, C. Valle, P. Lenfant, P. Bonhomme, A. Pérez-Ruzafa, J. Sánchez-
Lizaso, J. García-Charton, G. Bernard, V. Stelzenmüller, S. Planes, Spillover from
six western Mediterranean marine protected areas: evidence from artisanal
fisheries, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 366 (2008) 159–174.
[19] A. Charles, L. Wilson, Human dimensions of marine protected areas, ICES J. Mar.
Sci. 66 (2009) 6–15.
[20] T.R. McClanahan, J. Davies, J. Maina, Factors influencing resource users and
managers’ perceptions towards marine protected area management in Kenya,
Environ. Conserv. 32 (2005) 42–49.
[21] L.P. Oliveira, Fishers as advocates of marine protected areas: a case study from
Galicia (NW Spain), Mar. Policy 41 (2013) 95–102.
[22] C.Z. Santos, A. Schiavetti, Assessment of the management in Brazilian Marine
Extractive Reserves, Ocean Coast. Manag. 93 (2014) 26–36.
[23] T.R. Davis, D. Harasti, Predictive modelling of illegal fishing in no-take marine
protected areas, Fish., Manag. Ecol. 00 (2020) 1–10.
[24] FAO, Fisheries management. 4. Marine protected areas and fisheries, FAO
Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, Rome, 2011.
[25] B.C. Horta, M.I. Batista, L. Gonçalves, K. Erzini, J.E. Caselle, H. Cabral,
E. Gonçalves, Fishers’ behaviour in response to the implementation of a marine
protected area, PLoS One 8 (6) (2013), e65057.
[26] L.H. Pendleton, G.N. Ahmadia, H.I. Browman, R.H. Thurstan, D.M. Kaplan,
V. Bartolino, Debating the effectiveness of marine protected areas, ICES J. Mar. Sci.
75 (3) (2017) 1156–1159.
[27] C.M. Raymond, I. Fazey, M.S. Reed, L.C. Stringer, G.M. Robinson, A.C. Evely,
Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management,
J. Environ. Manag. 91 (2010) 1766–1777.
[28] P. Amorim, P. Sousa, E. Jardim, G.M. Menezes, Sustainability status of data-limited
fisheries: global challenges for snapper and grouper, Front. Mar. Sci. 6 (2019) 654.
[29] S.W. Purcell, R.S. Pomeroy, Driving small-scale fisheries in developing countries,
Front. Mar. Sci. 2 (2015) 44.
[30] N.J. Benett, P. Dearden, From measuring outcomes to providing inputs:
governance, management, and local development for more effective marine
protected areas, Mar. Policy 50 (2014) 96–110.
[31] S. Oberholzer, M. Saayman, A. Saayman, E. Slabbert, ‘The socio-economic impact
of Africa’s oldest marine park’, Koedoe 52 (1) (2010) 1–9.
[32] P. Shah, S.T.M. Dissanayake, Y. Fujita, P.A.L.D. Nunes, Impact of a local, coastal
community based management regime when defining marine protected areas:
empirical results from a study in Okinawa, Japan, PLosOne 14 (3) (2019),
0213354.
[33] I. Brueckner-Irwin, D. Armitage, S. Courtenay, Applying a social-ecological well-
being approach to enhance opportunities for marine protected area governance,
Ecol. Soc. 24 (3) (2019) art7.
M.L.V. Barbosa Filho et al.
[34] E.J. Hind, M.C. Hiponia, T.S. Gray, From community-based to centralised national
management—a wrong turning for the governance of the marine protected area in
Apo Island, Philippines, Mar. Policy 34 (2010) 54–62.
[35] Brasil, Lei nº 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, July
19, 2000, nº 138, Section 1, 200, p. 45. 〈http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/
leis/l9985.htm〉 (accessed 25 November 2018).
[36] R.L. Moura, C.V. Minte-Vera, I.B. Curado, R.B. Francini-Filho, C.L. Rodrigues, G.
F. Dutra, D.C. Alves, F.J.B. Souto, Challenges and prospects of fisheries co-
management under a Marine Extractive Reserve framework in Northeastern Brazil,
Coast. Manag. 37 (2009) 617–632.
[37] C.Z. Santos, A. Schiavetti, Reservas extrativistas marinhas do Brasil contradiç ões de
ordem legal, sustentabilidade e aspecto ecoló gico, Bol. do Inst. da Pesca De. São
Paulo 39 (4) (2013) 479–494.
[38] C.S. Seixas, A. Davidson-Hunt, D. Kalikoski, B. Davy, F. Berkes, F. Castro, R.P.
Medeiros, C.V. Minte-Vera, L.G. Araujo, Collaborative Coastal Management in
Brazil: Advancements, Challenges, and Opportunities. In: Salas, S. et al. (eds.).
Viability and Sustainability of Small-Scale Fisheries in Latin America and The
Caribbean, [s.l.], 2019, p. 425–449.
[39] A.C. Diegues, Marine protected areas and artisanal fisheries in Brazil, first ed.
International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, Chennai, 2008.
[40] R.B. Francini-Filho, R.L. Moura, Evidence for spillover of reef fishes from a no-take
marine reserve: an evaluation using the before-after control-impact (BACI)
approach, Fish. Res. 93 (2008) 346–356.
[41] R.K.P. Kikuchi, Z.M.A.N. Leão, M.D.M. Oliveira, Conservation status and spatial
patterns of AGRRA vitality indices in Southwestern Atlantic reefs, Rev. De. Biol.
Trop. 58 (1) (2010) 1–31.
[42] G.F. Dutra, G. Allen, T.B. Werner, S.A. McKenna, A rapid marine biodiversity
assessment of the Abrolhos Bank, Bahia, Brazil. 1 ed. Conservation International,
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 2005.
[43] M. Previero, M.A. Gasalla, Mapping fishing grounds, resource and fleet patterns to
enhance management units in data-poor fisheries: the case of snappers and
groupers in the Abrolhos Bank coral-reefs (South Atlantic), Ocean Coast. Manag.
154 (2018) 83–95.
[44] M. Previero, C.V. Minte-Vera, R.L. Moura, Fisheries monitoring in Babel: fish
ethnotaxonomy in a hotspot of common names, Neotrop. Ichthyol. 11 (2013)
467–476.
[45] ICMBIO, Reserva Extrativista Marinha de Corumbau, 2019. 〈http://www.icmbio.
gov.br/portal/populacoestradicionais/producao-e-uso-sustentavel/uso-
sustentavel-em-ucs/4088-reserva-extrativista-marinha-de-corumbau〉. (accessed
July 12 2020).
[46] IBAMA, Plano de Gestão da Reserva Extrativista marinha do Corumbau. first ed.
Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Brasília,
2003.
[47] R.L. Moura, G.F. Dutra, R.B. Francini-Filho, C.V. Minte-Vera, I.B. Curado, F.J.
Guimarães, R.F. Oliveira, D.C. Alves, Fisheries Management in the Marine
Extractive Reserve of Corumbau-Bahia, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília,
2007.
[48] H.P. Huntington, Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and
applications, Ecol. Appl. 10 (2000) 1270–1274.
[49] C. Glesne, Rapport and friendship in ethnographic research, Int. J. Qual. Stud.
Educ. 2 (1989) 45–54.
[50] H. Bernard. Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology, first ed..,, Sage
Publications, Newbury, 1988.
[51] K. Leleu, F. Alban, D. Pelletier, E. Charbonnel, Y. Letourneur, C.F. Boudouresque,
Fishers’ perceptions as indicators of the performance of Marine Protected Areas
(MPAs), Mar. Policy 36 (2012) 414–422.
[52] C. Pita, B.H. Costa, G. Franco, R. Coelho, I. Sousa, E.J. Gonçalves, J.M.S. Gonçalves,
K. Erzini, Fisher’s perceptions about a marine protected area over time, Aquac.
Fish. 5 (2020) 273–281.
[53] G.B.G. Souza, M. Vianna, Fish-based indices for assessing ecological quality and
biotic integrity in transitional waters: a systematic review, Ecol. Indic. 109 (2020),
105665.
[54] A. Zuur, E.N. Ieno, N. Walker, A.A. Saveliev, G.M. Smith, Mixed Effects Models and
Extensions in Ecology with R, Springer Science & Business Media, 2009.
[55] T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, Generalized additive models: some applications, J. Am.
Stat. Assoc. 82 (398) (1987) 371–386.
[56] R Development Core Team R2020. R: a language and environment for statistical
computing.
[57] S.N. Wood, Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood
estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 73
(2011) 3–36.
[58] A.T. Charles, Fishery conflicts: a unified framework, Mar. Policy 16 (5) (1992)
379–393.
Marine Policy 134 (2021) 104797
[59] P.A.S. James, A. Tidd, L.P. Kaitu, The impact of industrial tuna fishing on small-
scale fishers and economies in the Pacific, Mar. Policy 95 (2018) 189–198.
[60] R. Crouzeilles, R. Feltran-Barbieri, M.S. Ferreira, B.B. Strassburg, Hard times for
the Brazilian environment, Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1 (9) (2017) 1213.
[61] H. Escobar, Bolsonaro’s first moves have Brazilian scientists worried, Science 363
(2019) 330.
[62] P.M. Fearnside, Brazilian politics threaten environmental policies, Science 353
(2016) 746–748.
[63] L.C. Gerhardinger, B. Mesquita, S.M.G. Mattos, J.T. Mendonça, D.A. Vila-Nova,
A. Bossolani, R. Scharer, Small scale fisheries in Brazil: a strong, Cohesive Voice
SAMUDRA Rep. 76 (2017) 39–44.
[64] P.K. Nayak, F. Berkes, Interplay between local and global: change processes and
small-scale fisheries, in: R. Chuenpagdee, S. Jentoft (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity for
Small-Scale Fisheries Governance. MARE Publication Series, vol 21, Springer,
Cham, 2019.
[65] I. Ruiz-Mallén, E. Corbera, Community-based conservation and traditional
ecological knowledge: implications for social-ecological resilience, Ecol. Soc. 18
(4) (2013) art12.
[66] F. Berkes, Environmental governance for the anthropocene? Social-ecological
systems, resilience, and collaborative learning, Sustainability 9 (7) (2017) 1232.
[67] M. Nursey-Bray, P. Fidelman, M. Owusu, Does co-management facilitate adaptive
capacity in times of environmental change? Insights from fisheries in Australia,
Mar. Policy 96 (2018) 72–80.
[68] L.M. Whitehouse, M.S. Fowler, Meta-analysis reveals that fisheries co-management
alters socio-economic outcomes and resource well-being, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 600
(2018) 127–140.
[69] T. Agardy, P. Bridgewater, M.P. Crosby, J. Day, P.K. Dayton, R. Kenchington,
D. Laffoley, P. McConney, P.A. Peter, A. Murray, J.E. Parks, L. Peau, Dangerous
targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas,
Aquat. Conserv. 13 (2003) 1–15.
[70] S. Giakoumi, J. McGowan, M. Mills, M. Beger, R.H. Bustamante, A. Charles,
P. Christie, M. Fox, P. Garcia-Borboroglu, S. Gelcich, P. Guidetti, P. Mackelworth,
J.M. Maina, L. McCook, F. Micheli, L.E. Morgan, P.J. Mumby, L.M. Reyes, A. White,
K. Grorud-Colvert, H.P. Possingham, Revisiting “success” and “failure” of marine
protected areas: a conservation scientist perspective, Front. Mar. Sci. 5 (2018) 23.
[71] P. Christie, Marine Protected Areas as Biological Successes and Social Failures in
Southeast Asia. American Fisheries Society Symposium 42:155–164, 2004.
[72] H. Escobar, Com um arpão na mão e uma mangueira entre os dentes: Pescadores
mergulham fundo em busca dos melhores peixes na região dos Abrolhos, Jornal
impresso: Estadão, 2014, 〈https://sustentabilidade.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,
com-um-arpao-namao-e-uma-mangueira-entre-os-dentes〉,1128171. Accessed 18
August 2020.
[73] M.L.V. Barbosa-Filho, G.B.G. Souza, S.F. Lopes, R.A. Hauser-Davis, S. Siciliano, J.
S. Mourão, Artisanal fisher knowledge and attitudes concerning compressor fishing
in a north-eastern brazilian marine protected area, Hum. Ecol. 48 (2020) 357–366.
[74] P. Guidetti, M. Milazzo, S. Bussotti, A. Molinari, M. Murenu, A. Pais, N. Spanò,
R. Balzano, T. Agardy, F. Boero, G. Carrada, R. Cattaneo-Vietti, A. Cau,
R. Chemello, S. Greco, A. Manganaro, G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, G.F. Russo,
L. Tunesi, Italian marine reserve effectiveness: does enforcement matter? Biol.
Conserv. 141 (2008) 699–709.
[75] F. Leverington, M. Hockings, H. Pavese, K.L. Costa, J. Courrau, 2008. Management
effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – A global study, TNC, WWF, IUCN-
WCPA, Gatton.
[76] M.L.V. Barbosa-Filho, E.M.C. Costa-Neto, S. Siciliano, Knowledge and practices of
expert fishermen of South Bahia, Brazil, Regarding the International Shark Fin
Market, Hum. Ecol. 44 (2017) 1–9.
[77] M.L.V. Barbosa-Filho, G.B.G. Souza, S.F. Lopes, S. Siciliano, R.A. Hauser-Davis, J.
S. Mourão, Evidence of shifting baseline and Fisher judgment on lane snapper
(Lutjanus synagris) management in a Brazilian marine protected area, Ocean
Coast. Manag. 183 (2020), 105025.
[78] D.J. Agnew, J. Pearce, G. Pramod, T. Peatman, R. Watson, R. John, J.
R. Beddington, T.J. Pitcher, Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing,
PlosOne 4 (2) (2009), e4570.
[79] G. Macfadyen, G. Hosch, N. Kaysser, L. Tagziria, The IUU Fishing Index, 2019,
Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Limited and the Global Initiative Against
Transnational Organized Crime, Geneva, 2019.
[80] F. Ghazali, W.I. Talaat, A. Rahman, H. Rusli, Malaysian Efforts in Combating IUU
Fishing: A Legal and Policy Review, J. East Asia Int. Law 12 (2) (2019) 387–400.
[81] I. Okafor-Yarwood, Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and the
complexities of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) for countries in the Gulf
of Guinea, Mar. Policy 99 (2019) 414–422.
[82] K. Ismail, F. Kusasi, R. Fitriana, Fishers’ welfare in Natuna waters post IUU fishing
policy implementation, Indonesia Marine Fellows Program – MFP, Pasarminggu,
2018.