Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 214–224

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean and Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

The influence of fisherman scale in the resilience of socio-ecological systems: T

An analysis using Q methodology
Patrícia Falcão Buenoa,∗, Alexandre Schiavettib,c
a
Graduate Program in Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation, State University of Santa Cruz, (UESC), Jorge Amado Highway Km 16, 45662-9000, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil
b
Ethnnoconservation and Protected Areas Laboratory (LECAP), Department of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (DCAA), State University of Santa Cruz (UESC),
Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil
c
Investigador Asociado CESIMAR CENPAT Puerto Madryn, Chubut, Argentina

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs) is an important conservation strategy but in spite of the
Socio-ecological systems (SES) generated benefits, many of these areas are targets of criticism because they also generate negative social,
Abrolhos economic and cultural impacts on local communities. When not properly handled, these conflicts can undermine
Fishermen preservation objectives. Due to the human population increase and the emergence of new MPAs around the
Conflicts
world, the interaction between man and nature tends to increase. The Abrolhos bank, where the Abrolhos
National Marine Park (Abrolhos N.M.P) is located, is home to the largest and richest coral reef areas in the South
Atlantic. This region has around 20,000 fishermen who exploit the fishing grounds and their surroundings. The
implementation of the Abrolhos N.M.P led to a change in the lifestyle of fishermen in the surrounding region.
These changes have generated conflicts between fishermen and this MPA. Therefore, the objective of this study
was to understand the resilience of the socioecological system (SES) of the Abrolhos N.M.P surroundings,
through the vision and the strategies adopted by the fishermen of the region, using the Q methodology. For this
study, the small and medium scale fishermen of the Abrolhos N.M.P surroundings were interviewed. The results
indicate that the resilience of the SES varies according to the fishing scale. The SES that small-scale fishermen are
a part of have shown to be less resilient and also have more conflicts with this MPA. For them, the loss of old
fishing grounds that became part of the MPA has compromised their work. Meanwhile, the SSE that the medium-
scale fishermen are part of has shown to be more resilient, although they also have conflicts with the AMP. For
them, the loss of a fishery represented an advantage for the maintenance of fishing in the region. Changes
affecting the marine landscape need to be carried out with caution and must take the reality experienced by the
fishermen in the vicinity into account, in order to avoid the exclusion and marginalization of these communities
which in turn generates conflicts that undermine the preservation objectives.

1. Introduction restriction of the use of resources illegal to the activities previously

Conflicts involving protected areas (PAs) and human populations
are often unavoidable and have already been registered in countries
such as India, Chile, China, South Africa and Brazil (Cavalcanti et al.,
2010; Karanth et al., 2013; Alexander et al., 2015; Ohrens et al., 2016).
The existence of these conflicts generates a negative feeling toward the
preservation standards of these regions, which creates a major problem
for those working with conservation biology (Dickman, 2010).
The creation of PAs will generally modify the rights of use and ac-
cess to resources within a region (Wilshusen et al., 2002). These
changes can lead to conflicts with local residents both from within the
PAs and their surroundings (Andrade and Rhodes, 2012), making the
carried out by these people (Nepal, 2002). Therefore, in order to
achieve the preservation goals, it is essential to take the social, cultural,
political, economic and environmental contexts that are specific to the
areas where PAs will be created (or expanded) into account (Bennett
and Dearden, 2014).
The implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs) is the most
common preservation strategy in marine and coastal environments
(Gaines et al., 2010). Furthermore, MPAs hold an important ecological
and social recognition for thousands of people, who depend on the
fishing and ecosystem services offered by these types of environments
(Claudet, 2011).
However, despite the benefits generated by the creation of MPAs,

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bueno.bio@hotmail.com, patricia.bueno@univali.br (P.F. Bueno).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.12.008
Received 18 November 2017; Received in revised form 22 October 2018; Accepted 8 December 2018
0964-5691/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.F. Bueno, A. Schiavetti
many of these areas have been targets of criticism, because their im-
plementation tends to create negative social, economic, cultural and
political repercussions within local communities (Bavinck and
Vivekanandan, 2011; Bennett and Dearden, 2014). Conflicts involving
MPAs are usually linked to fishery resources and fishing communities.
Therefore, in order to achieve the preservation objectives of the MPAs,
it is essential to count on the support of the fishing communities that
depend on these environments (Ban et al., 2011).
The first national marine park in Brazil was created in 1983, called
Abrolhos National Marine Park (Abrolhos N.M.P), (IBAMA, 1991). In
2012, many years after the establishment of the park, there was an
attempt to expand its area, from 91,330 ha to 891,872 ha (O ECO,
2014). This proposal generated discussions in the surrounding fishing
communities about the possibility of new changes to the fishermen's
lifestyle in this region's MPA, as new areas of fisheries would be
transformed into fishing-exclusion zones.
In Brazil, conflicts between fishermen and the agencies responsible
for the surveillance and management of these regions are easily ob-
served in former MPAs (Begossi et al., 2009). These changes often
“force” fishermen, who are the main users of these areas, to act illegally
(Lopes et al., 2013).
Given the increase of the human population and the emergence of
new MPAs in the world, conflicts between man and MPAs may have
arisen. Therefore, in order to understand the integration of this ex-
change between man and ecosystems, it is extremely important to un-
derstand the dynamics of socio-ecological systems (SES) (Fischer et al.,
2015), as well as the resilience of these systems.
The concept of resilience was introduced in ecology by Holing
(1973), who defined resilience as a system's ability to re-establish its
equilibrium when exposed to disturbances by using different resources
and strategies. In the 1990s, resilience became popular in academia and
among laypeople, with its concept being widely used to describe a
system's ability to withstand disturbances (Angeler and Allen, 2016), or
reorganize and find a new break-even point with different structures
and functions (Gunderson, 2000; Júnior et al., 2013).
Folke (2006) summarized resilience into three concepts ranging
from the narrower interpretation of “engineer resilience” to broader
approaches such as resilience in the context of socio-ecological systems.
Currently, resilience is seen as an emergent property of complex sys-
tems, which have different states of stability (Angeler and Allen, 2016),
and which also encompasses socio-ecological systems (SESs).
The term socio-ecological system (SES) was designated by Berkers
and Folke (1998), to emphasize the integration of people as a part of
nature. This holistic approach shows that people are a part of the dy-
namics of systems and are one of the components that act and shape the
system (Berkers and Folke, 1998; Cote and Nightingale, 2012). The
SESs are not linear, or stable, and the systems are in constant devel-
opment (Folke, 2006). SESs transform, adapt, or collapse, and these
changes are part of the process, since adaptive dynamics is an inherent
property of the system (Cote and Nightingale, 2012). This approach
encompasses ideas of adaptation, learning, and self-organization (Folke,
2006). Therefore, the focus of SES resilience lies in the internal trans-
formation of the system to change, where SES components may or may
not adapt (Berkes et al., 2003).
The SES of this study includes the area of the park, its surroundings
that are used as fishing areas, and the fishermen who work in this re-
gion. Fishermen, direct users of this resource, are part of the social
system, which in turn has subsystems formed by small scale fishermen
and medium-scale fishermen. The ecological system is composed of
available resources and their interactions, which are also formed by
subsystems such as: the area of the Park and its surroundings of reef
environments and open sea areas. Therefore, this study attempts to
understand the resilience of SSE from the surrounding of Abrolhos
N.M.P, through the vision and strategies adopted by fishermen.
Different indicators have been described in the literature, such as:
the ability to assimilate new and local knowledge; the capacity to plan,
215
Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 214–224
organize, and reorganize; flexibility; community system infrastructure;
and the ability to plan and use technologies (Berkers and Folke, 1998;
Cinner et al., 2009; Marshall and Marshall, 2007; Johson et al., 2014;
Silva and Lopes, 2014). The indicators of learning, organization and
flexibility were chosen to be understood, from the fishermen's point of
view, as to how they adapted to these changes and consequently how
this affects the resilience of the SSE in which they are inserted.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Area of study
The Abrolhos N.M.P. was created in 1983, as the first National
Marine Park in Brazil.
The park occupies an area of approximately 266 nautical square
miles and contains two areas. The largest area is formed by the
Abrolhos parcel and the Abrolhos archipelago. The smallest area is
formed by the Timbebas reef, with this being the portion of the
Abrolhos N.M.P that is closest to the coast (IBAMA, 1991), located
approximately 6 nautical miles away from the city of Alcobaça.
The reefs of this region form two arches, one coastal and extensive,
and the other smaller and further away from the coast. The reefs and
islands occupy an area of 3.800 square km. The coastal arch reefs are:
Itacolomy, Prado, Guaratibas, Timbebas, Areia, Parcel das Paredes,
Lixa, Cabocla and Sebastião Gomes. The outer arch reefs are a portion
of the Abrolhos and California reef (IBAMA, 1991). The Abrolhos bank,
where the park is located, has coral reefs that grow and form large
mushroom-shaped structures, called chapeirões. This region is home to
the largest and richest coral reef system in the entire South Atlantic
Ocean (Leão and Kikuchi, 2005). Among the species of endemic corals
found in Brazil, Mussimilia braziliensis and Favia leptophylla are endemic
for the Abrolhos Bank (Mazzei et al., 2016). The region is also an im-
portant location for the breastfeeding and reproduction of the Mega-
ptera Novaeangliae humpback whales, featuring its highest concentra-
tion on the Brazilian coast (Andriolo et al., 2010).
Tourism is an important economic activity in the region, but over
the past years, this type of activity has dropped considerably due to the
lack of incentive from public policies. In addition, the Abrolhos region
is of great importance for fishing; it is believed that the region supports
about 20,000 fishermen who mostly practice small-scale fishing in
small and medium-sized vessels (Dutra et al., 2011).
Fig. 1 shows the location of Abrolhos N.M.P., which is at the far
south of the state of Bahia. Along the coastline, the cities closest to the
limits of the park include Prado, Alcobaça Caravelas and Nova Viçosa.
The studied region encompasses small and medium-scale fishers in
these four cities.
2.2. Fishing grade at the study area
It is hard to discuss fishing without entering into definitions and
classification criteria (Batista et al., 2014). The lack of consensus among
researchers is due to the great diversity of the sector, since its activities
are shaped by regional, biological, social, economic and political factors
(Carvalho et al., 2011). These peculiarities make it difficult to cate-
gorize this activity and its workers, so some authors have classified
commercial fishing by small, medium, and large-scale (FAERJ and
SEBRAE-RJ, 2009).
The terms “artisanal fisheries” and “small-scale fisheries” are often
used synonymously throughout the literature (Batista et al., 2014).
However, there is a difference between these definitions; artisanal
fishing is characterized by the absence of technologies and simplicity in
the fishing gear used, whereas the term small-scale fisheries does not
define itself only by the method of fishing used, but also as the category
of fishing that may have a high level of complexity and makes use of
different types of fishing strategies (Batista et al., 2014; Léopold et al.,
2014; Ouréns et al., 2015). Regarding “medium-scale fisheries”, studies
P.F. Bueno, A. Schiavetti
Fig. 1. Map of the Brazilian coast highlighting the southern coast of Bahia where the Abrolhos National Marine Park is located and the four cities where fishermen
were interviewed.
is still scarce, and clear definitions of this category have yet to be
provided (Fréon et al., 2014).
As with small-scale fisheries, the terms “industrial fishing” and
“large-scale fisheries” are also used synonymously in the literature
(Batista et al., 2014). Thompson (1980) developed a table where he
“separated” the world's fishing industry into two large categories (small
and large-scale). This information, referring to the categorization of
fishing ladders, continued to be reworked and used by other authors
(Ruttan et al., 2000; Johnson, 2006; Carvalho et al., 2011). Currently,
large-scale fishing is understood to be reword the type of fishery re-
source exploited (Batista et al., 2014), the large size of the vessels, the
greater autonomy when at sea, and high technological and financial
investment (Johnson, 2006).
In this study, a number of the fishermen interviewed fit the small-
scale fisheries requirements. Another group of fishermen interviewed
demonstrated characteristics of both the small and large-scale fisheries,
so these fishermen were categorized under medium-scale fishery.
Therefore, in this study fishermen were separated into two categories:
small-scale and medium-scale fisheries.
2.3. Fishing characterization
Fishing in the far south of Bahia generally involves vessels that vary
from 4 to 20 m in length, can fish up to 1,200 m deep, and remain in the
sea for up to 30 days (Previero, 2014; Santos, 2015). According to
Previero and Gassala (2018), fishermen from these regions will nor-
mally use different fishing techniques. Furthermore, they call them-
selves mixed arts fishermen (Zambonim et al., 2009).
Small-scale fishing of the region is carried out by boats ranging from
5 m to 8 m in length, the vessels are made of wood, and all of them
include a small house. This type of boat can spend at least two and at a
maximum seven days at sea. The crew varies from two to three fish-
ermen. The crew works on a partnership basis, dividing the profits into
parts. There is no hierarchical work structure, and all crew members
perform all functions. There is no employment relationship between the
216
Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 214–224
crew and the owners of the boats, and the navigation technology is
simple and based only on the compass and PX radio.
On the other hand, medium-scale fishery in the far south of Bahia
has a mix of characteristics of both small and large-scale fishery. In
general, fishermen on average fishes both in coastal waters and in
deeper waters and can go to the breakage of the shelf. Vessels range
from 8 m to 14 m in length and can stay from 8 to 35 days at sea. The
crew varies from four to seven fishermen, and most of the time the
boat's owner belongs to a small businessman who does not work on
board. The crew has no employment ties, and they work in an informal
regime, where each receives a percentage of what was fished according
to their function on board. The most sophisticated navigation tech-
nology uses GPS, PX and VHF radio, echo sounder and sometimes
sounder to find the shoal.
2.4. Indicator of resilience
It is common for studies to use social data such as the fishermen's
age, place of birth, schooling, and time of existence of the protected
area as some of the reasons that influence the perception of fishermen
(Leleu et al., 2012; Mcclanahan et al., 2005, Silva and Lopes, 2014).
But, in this study we use a different approach sought to understand how
the perception of benefits and acceptance of the presence of the Ab-
rolhos N.M.P were influenced only by the different fishing scales
through tree indicators, which served as a tool to measure the resilience
of the SES, are: learning, organization, and flexibility/adaptation. We
chose to work with these indicators because these components and their
interrelationships are widely used factors in understanding the resi-
lience of the SES (Folke, 2001; Marshall and Marshall, 2007, Johson
et al., 2014).
Knowledge exchanges are essential for societies to adapt to changes
(Maclean et al., 2014). Thus, the combination of different types of
knowledge sources is important for building social-ecological resilience.
(Folke, 2001). For this reason, the learning/knowledge indicator was
chosen to determine how fishermen perceive the relationships between
P.F. Bueno, A. Schiavetti
Fig. 2. Schematic drawing of the board according to the Q methodology, wherein the Q-sample statements will be distributed.
the availability of resources, the presence of the protected area in the
availability of resources, and the impact of fishing.
A social system may react differently to the challenges posed by
changes in its environment (Ross and Mcgee, 2006). A resilient social
system is one that can reorganize itself in the face of change through
strong economic and political connections (Buikstra et al., 2010). For
this reason, the organization indicator was selected to determine how
fishermen organize themselves economically and as a group given the
changes that occur in fishing, in the marine ecosystem, and in the so-
ciety in which they are inserted. According to Silva and Lopes (2014),
flexibility/adaptation can be affected by a number of factors, including:
whether or not to survive exclusively on an income from fishing, the
variety of resources exploited, and age. Therefore, the flexibility/
adaptation indicator served to understand how fishermen are receptive
to changes in their fishing areas, the rules of entry access, and the use of
the region's fishery resources. In addition, we sought to determine the
economic flexibility of these fishermen, in order to discover if they have
other income alternatives that are not linked to fishing.
2.5. Q methodology
The Q methodology was developed by Stephenson in 1935 to
quantitatively study subjectivity, that is, people's views on a subject
(Brown, 1993). This methodology combines quantitative statistical
techniques with a qualitative approach used to interpret factors, iden-
tifying the most common patterns of attitudes and thoughts that people
have about a given subject as well as demonstrate the significant dif-
ferences between these thoughts and attitudes (Brown, 1993; Exel and
Graaf, 2005; Watts and Stenner, 2005).
This method has been highlighted because it proves that sub-
jectivity, besides being communicable, can be systematically analyzed
(Niedziałkowskia et al., 2018). Due to its great success, the technique
has been applied across several areas of knowledge, from economics,
psychology, ecology and conservation biology (Danesh et al., 2011;
Buckley, 2012; Davies and Hodge, 2012; Rastogi et al., 2013;
Niedziałkowskia et al., 2018).
To be better understood, the method can be divided into five steps:
(1) Concourse, (2) Q-sample, (3) P-set, (4) Q-sort, and finally data
analysis. The first stage, “Concourse”, involves collecting the set of
statements that summarize all of the various views on a particular
subject (Exel and Graaf, 2005). Statements can be obtained through
diverse sources of information, such as: scientific journals, magazines,
newspapers, web sites, focus groups, oral histories, participatory ob-
servation, and interviews. It is at this stage that participants will present
their views on the subject to be investigated (Rastogi et al., 2013).
The second step, “Q-sample”, is the name given to the sample of
selected statements that represent the greatest diversity of opinions on
the subject. In Q studies, the number of statements range from 30 to 60
(Bryant et al., 2011; Davies and Hodge, 2012; Rastogi et al., 2013). At
the time of sample selection, it is important that the statements be
equally represented, i.e. statements must be evenly distributed between
positive and negative statements on the subject (Ray, 2011). Each Q-
sample statement is written on individual cards that will be numbered
and shown to respondents (Exel and Graaf, 2005).
217
Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 214–224
The third step, “P-set”, represents the name given to the set of
people that will classify the statements contained in the Q-sample cards.
In Q studies it does not take a large number of people to compose the
“P-set”. Small samples are sufficient to complete a study, as long as it
encompasses all the diversity of opinions on the subject (Woolley and
Mccginnis, 2000).
The fourth and last step, “Q-sort” is the name given to the moment
when participants are instructed to classify the set of statements (“Q-
sample”) along a continuum of points. To start, the participant will
receive a set of cards and should read and separate them into three
small groups. One pile will have the letters that contain the statements
that the participant agrees with, another pile will contain those that
they disagree with, and finally they must separate the cards with the
phrases in which they are undecided about in the third pile (Ray, 2011).
After the cards have been separated, the participants will be instructed
to sort the cards along a continuum of points, wherein one extreme
represents “completely agree” (+4) and the other “completely dis-
agree” (−4).
The classification of the cards will be carried out on a base that will
serve as a board, where there will be spaces where the cards should be
inserted (Fig. 2). Finally, each participant will have their own “Q-sort”,
meaning they will have their own sentence classification. The base
where the cards will be fitted should have a symmetrical distribution
around the center (Exel and Graaf, 2005). This distribution is important
because it forces the participants to show the subjectivity of their pre-
ferences regarding the subject (Ellingsen et al., 2010), weighing the
merits of each statement and putting only what they truly consider
relevant in the ends of the range (Asah et al., 2012).
2.6. Data collection
The first set of information was collected from small and medium-
scale fishermen working in the vicinity of the Abrolhos region by means
of semi-structured interviews. In order to obtain this information, the
fishermen were selected through non-probability sampling. They were
approached about their fishing documents on docking ports, as well as
adjacent living areas in the cities of Prado, Alcobaça, Caravelas, and
Nova Viçosa.
In order to avoid inducing the responses from the fishermen, the
authors chose to conduct semi-structured interviews with both open
and close-ended questions. The interviews were divided into four blocks
of questions: the first block contained the profile data of the inter-
viewee; the second block had questions for the learning indicator; the
third block had questions for the flexibility indicator; and the fourth
block included questions for the organization indicator.
During the first “O Concourse” a total of 57 small and medium-scale
fishermen from the region studied were interviewed in order to gen-
erate statements. From these interviews 56 statements were generated
that represented the greatest diversity of ideas on the subject under
study, but only 36 statements were selected to compose the “Qsample”.
During the fourth step, another 86 fishermen were invited to classify
the cards (43 small-scale fishermen and 43 medium-scale fishermen).
Throughout all steps of the study a total of 143 fishermen participated.
P.F. Bueno, A. Schiavetti
Table 1
Table with the extracted factors that have an
eigenvalue above one, highlighted in bold and
* for factors 1 and 2 that were selected for the
factorial analysis.
Factor Eigen value
1* 32.5221
2* 4.7190
3 4.3193
4 3.8229
5 3.2130
6 3.1529
7 2.8702
8 2.6559
9 2.5949
10 2.3231
2.7. Data analysis
Data analysis within the Q methodology involves factor analysis and
factor rotation. In factor analysis, people and their “Q-sorts” are the
variables, and the correlation matrix is constructed based on these
elements (Frate, 2011). After the correlation matrices are constructed,
the extraction of the factors are carried out. A Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) was performed for the extraction of the factors. The PCA
seeks to reduce the size of the data set (Laros, 2005), so this analysis
was chosen due to the large number of fishermen interviewed (86),
proving to be the most appropriate method to reduce a large dataset.
During the extraction of the factors only the first two factors were
selected. These factors were selected because they had the highest ei-
genvalues (Table 1). Factors with smaller eigenvalues were not used,
because the lower the eigenvalue of a factor, the less this factor explains
the variance of the original variables (Filho and Junior, 2010).
After this step, the factors are rotated, which serves to place em-
phasis on the results, facilitating the interpretation of the data without
distorting their statistical characteristics. In the present work the
Varimax rotation was used.
The free program “PQMethod” was used in the study at present; this
program was specially developed for the analysis of this methodology
(Newman and Ramlo, 2010). The most significant variables for each
factor were automatically marked by the program. Finally, the de-
scription and analysis of the factors were determined by the “Q-sorts”
that were selected for each factor. All the results of this study were
presented in tables that can be used to interpret the factors. The Q-sorts
that stood out statistically in each factor were used to compose an ideal
Q-sort, which in turn represents the view for each factor.
3. Results
Table 2 shows the 36 statements that compose the Q-sample and
their respective positions within each factor. The position of each
statement is based on the score/Zscore for each factor. The higher the Z-
score of a statement, the higher its score on the rank, which in this
study ranged from +4 to −4.
3.1. Factor 1 – small decrease, large gains
The statements in Table 3 below were classified according to the Z-
score. Statements with the highest Z-scores were placed in the ranking
highest scores (+4 and + 3). The same criterion applies to statements
with negative scores (−4 and −3). Therefore, statements at the ex-
tremes of each Q-sort reflect what this particular group of fishermen
considered to be the most important information.
Factor 1 was formed by the opinion of 29 fishermen. Among these,
19 were mediumscale fishermen and 10 were small-scale fishermen.
This means that 65% of the responses were influenced by the medium-
218
Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 214–224
scale fishermen's perspectives.
Factor 1 was labeled as “small decrease, large gains”, because
medium-scale fishermen generally saw the loss of fishing grounds as an
advantage for the maintenance of their fishing activity in the region.
This information was confirmed when the mediumscale fishermen
agreed to statements number 1 and 2 and disagreed with statement
number 36.
The statements considered most important within this factor, em-
bedded are in Table 3, include the three indicators approached in this
study (flexibility, learning and organization).
The flexibility indicator was highlighted because it appeared in five
of the twelve most important statements. Next, the learning indicator
was represented by means of four statements. Finally, the organization
indicator was also referred to in three statements (Table 3).
Within the learning indicator, it was possible to observe that Factor
1 fishermen assimilated the new knowledge related to the preservation
unit both in relation to the rules of use and access to the resource, as
well as in relation to the importance of the existence of the preservation
unit itself. This information was confirmed when the fishermen agreed
with statement number 32, and when they disagree with statements
number 7, 34 and 36 (Table 3).
Regarding the organization indicator, the fishermen have shown to
be organized in matters related to the fisheries and have demonstrated
this by agreeing to statements number 21 and 23, and by disagreeing
with statement number 26.
In terms of the flexibility indicator, the fishermen have shown
flexibility by agreeing with statement numbers 1, 2 and 18, and in-
flexibility for disagreeing with statement numbers 12 and 16.
3.2. Factor 2 – small decrease great losses
Table 4 indicates which statements were considered most important
for Factor 2. This factor was formed by the opinions of 10 fishermen.
Among these, 8 were small-scale fishermen and 2 were medium-scale
fishermen, which means that 80% of the responses were influenced by
the perspectives of small-scale fishermen.
Factor 2's label, “small decrease, great losses”, refers to how the
fishermen from Factor 2 perceived the decrease in the volumes fished
by the fishing boats they use. For this group, abandoning these fishing
grounds generated great losses that resulted in damages to their work.
In this factor, the statements for the three indicators were also po-
sitioned among the most important ones. The indicators for learning
and organization were also mentioned in five statements for each in-
dicator, while the statements for flexibility had only two mentions.
In relation to the learning indicator, similarly to the fishermen from
Factor 1, Factor 2 fishermen also learned about the rules of use and
access to resources established by Abrolhos N.M.P., in disagreeing with
statements 34 and 36, with only Factor 1 disagreeing with statement
33. However, they did not demonstrate that they understood the im-
portance and benefits generated by the implementation of Abrolhos
N.M.P. for fishing activity in the region, as they disagreed with state-
ment number 3.
Fishermen for Factor 2 have demonstrated that their learning about
fishing occurred traditionally, with their families. This information was
confirmed when they agreed with statement 30, which was already
expected for Factor 2 fishermen because they are the representatives of
small-scale fisheries.
Regarding organization, Factor 2 fishermen seem to be more con-
cerned about these issues when compared to Factor 1 fishermen, since
the organization indicator statements were most cited among the high
scores by fishermen of Factor 2. In general, fishermen from Factor 2
seek to be organized, and have demonstrated this by agreeing with
statement numbers 5, 21 and 23, and by disagreeing with statement
number 26. The only negative point in the organization question was
the fact that these fishermen agreed with statement number 25.
The flexibility indicator was mentioned twice by fishermen from
P.F. Bueno, A. Schiavetti Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 214–224

Table 2
Rank of statements and Z-score for each factor. Numbers in bold have significant value P < 0.05, bold numbers and underlining have significant value P < 0.01.
Nº Statement Factor 1 Factor 2

Rank Z score Rank Z score

1 Fishing is prohibited in Abrolhos. 4 1.55 1 0.81

2 Fishing is prohibited in the park area of Timbebas. 4 1.46 −2 −0.86
3 The creation of Abrolhos park improved the fishermen lives. 1 0.70 −4 −1.64
4 Abrolhos park only created benefits for entrepreneurs. −2 −0.85 2 0.87
5 Signaling the boundaries of the park helps the fishermen. 2 0.88 3 1.08
6 The supervision of Abrolhos park only fines small boats. −2 −1.11 −1 −0.56
7 The supervision of Abrolhos park only fines large boats. −3 −1.25 −2 −1.05
8 The inspectors of Abrolhos park respect the fishermen. 1 0.25 −1 −0.60
9 The opinion of fishermen is not heard by Abrolhos park management. −1 −0.32 0 0.17
10 Tourists only create benefits for Abrolhos park. −1 −0.69 0 0.27
11 Whales hinder the fishing activity. 1 0.33
12 The area of the park should be reduced. −4 −1.53 0 −0.20
13 Fishing is my only source of income (I do not have other jobs). 1 0.58 4 1.50
14 My fish is only sold to middleman. −2 −0.90
15 I have not changed my way of fishing over the years. −2 −0.89 1 0.36
16 I do not have closing time insurance. −4 −1.48 −1 −0.58
17 I spend more days at sea fishing today than I did before. 2 0.97 −3 −1.32
18 I change my fishing targets so I can earn more. 4 1.57 0 0.23
19 My wife earns the family allowance (bolsa família). 0 0.12 2 0.84
20 If fishing is prohibited where I fish, I change areas. 2 0.93 2 0.94
21 I'm part of the fishing colony. 3 1.17 −1 - 0.61
22 I'm part of another fishermen group outside the fishing colony. −1 −0.71 3 1.44
23 My fishing documentation is always up-to-date. 3 1.37 −2 −0.64
24 When I am earning my closing time insurance, I continue to fish other fish that are not part of the closure. 0 0.01 4 1.86
25 Fishermen are not a united group. 2 0.92 0 0.03
26 I don't invest money in fishing activity. −3 −1.35 3 1.37
27 I don't attend meetings at the fishing colony. −1 −0.67 −3 −1.33
28 I don't get involved in the issues of my city. 0 0.15 −1 −0.52
29 I don't fish egg-carrying fish. 0 −0.27 −2 −0.83
30 I have learned how to fish with my family. 0 0.18 0 −0.17
31 I need to use the radio and give notice whenever I enter the area of Abrolhos park. 1 0.55 4 1.56
1 0.36
32 I have to remove my fishing gear from the water when I enter the area of the Abrolhos park. 3 1.46 2 0.85
33 I can't anchor the boat anywhere within the area of Abrolhos park. −1 −0.53 −3 −1.21
34 I can't seek shelter within the area of Abrolhos park. −3 −1.32 −4 −1.46
35 The amount of fish decreases but never ends. 1 0.62 1 0.42
36 Abrolhos park does not operate like a fish reservoir. −4 1.55 −4 −1.69

Factor 2. These fishermen were adamant in agreeing with statement 4. Discussion

number 13 and disagreeing with statement number 16. This inflex-
ibility is linked to the sense that when fishermen receive insurance, they
are automatically obliged by the government not to engage in any other
type of paid activity, making them dependent on the aid. In addition,
many small-scale fishermen claim they have no income other than
fishing.
4.1. Acceptance and perception of the effects of the protected area
Abrolhos N.M.P. was implemented over twenty years ago. This
period of time was enough for the fishermen of both factors to realize
that this MPA serves as a source of renewal for the fish stocks, supplying
the surroundings of the areas where they fish (Francini-Filho and
Moura, 2008). The positive effect of a protected area tends to be per-
ceived by its users after several years of existence (Mcclanahan et al.,
2005). Now, for the first time this positive perception of the importance

Table 3
Statements considered most important by the fishermen for Factor 1, classified according to their score in the Z-score. In the indicator column, the letters L, F and O
respectively mean learning, flexibility and organization.
Nº Statement Indicator Z-score Rank

18 I change the target of my fishery to have more money. F 1.574 +4 (totally agree)
1 Fishing is prohibited in Abrolhos. F 1.550 +4 (totally agree)
2 Fishing is prohibited in Timbebas. F 1.461 +4 (totally agree)
32 I have to remove my fishing gear from the water when I enter in Abrolhos Park. L 1.457 +3 (strongly agree)
23 My fisherman's document is regularized. O 1.369 +3 (strongly agree)
21 I'm part of the fishermen's colony. O 1.174 +3 (strongly agree)
36 Abrolhos park doesn't acts as a reserve of fish. L −1.554 −4 (totally disagree)
12 Abrolhos' park area should decrease in size. F −1.531 −4 (totally disagree)
16 I don't get insurance when fishing is closed. F −1.479 −4 (totally disagree)
26 I don't invest my money in fishing activity. O −1.349 −3 (strongly disagree)
34 If I have a problem, I can't get refuge in the park area. L −1.317 −3 (strongly disagree)
7 The inspection of Abrolhos park only penalizes big boats. L −1.252 −3 (strongly disagree)

219
P.F. Bueno, A. Schiavetti Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 214–224

Table 4
Statements considered most important by the fishermen for Factor 2, classified according to their score on the Z-score. In the indicator column, the letters L, F and O
respectively mean learning, flexibility and organization.
Nº Statement Indicator Z-score Rank

23 My fisherman's document is regularized. O 1.857 +4 (totally agree)

30 I learned to fish in my family. L 1.556 +4 (totally agree)
13 Fishing is my only source of income. F 1.499 +4 (totally agree)
21 I'm part of the fishermen's colony. O 1.441 +3 (strongly agree)
25 Fishermen aren't United. O 1.369 +3 (strongly agree)
5 Signaling the boundaries of Abrolhos Park helps the fishermen. O 1.077 +3 (strongly agree)
36 Abrolhos park doesn't act as a reserve of fish. L −1.694 −4 (totally disagree)
3 The creation of Abrolhos park has improved my life. L −1.642 −4 (totally disagree)
34 If I have a problem I can't get refuge in the park area. L −1.465 −4 (totally disagree)
26 I don't invest my money in fishing activity. O −1.327 −3 (strongly disagree)
16 I don't get insurance when fishing is closed. F −1.317 −3 (strongly disagree)
33 I can anchor my boat anywhere in Abrolhos Park. L −1.212 −3 (strongly disagree)

of the area has been registered by the fishermen of the Abrolhos N.M.P demonstrating that the region's users feel the decrease in access to
environment. important fishing areas in a different way, which in turn affects their
The perception that Abrolhos N.M.P. acts as a “nursery” which perception (Voyer et al., 2013). This difference in perception is prob-
sustains fishing in the region is evident for fishermen on both fishing ably linked to resource dependence and the limitations of small-scale
scales (small and medium). fisheries.
Medium-scale fishermen of Factor 1 say that ” … If the fishing in
Abrolhos and Timbebas is fully liberated, everything will end around
4.2. The difference between knowing the rules and executing them
here … ”. Small-scale fishermen of Factor 2 say that ” … It is the place
(a reference to Abrolhos N.M.P.) where the fish are raised and we go out
Factor 1 fishermen, who represent medium-scale fishermen, rated
for fishing … ”.
four of the fourteen learning statements among the most important. In
Despite the fishermen's recognition of the importance of the ex-
all four statements, they demonstrated to be aware of the rules of use
istence of this protected area, Factor 2 fishermen (small scale) do not
and access to resources.
agree with the ban on fishing in Timbebas. Factor 2 fishermen believe
On the other hand, Factor 2 fishermen who represent small-scale
the immediate decrease in volume in this area was felt more strongly
fisheries, have rated five of the fourteen statements of learning among
than the long-term benefit of maintaining the fisheries. Factor 2 fish-
the most important. Among these five statements, only statement
ermen have classified statement 2 ?Fishing prohibited in Timbebas” at
number 3 ?The creation of the Abrolhos park improved the fishermen's
position −2 (I disagree) because they felt harmed by having lost this
lives” was incorrectly classified, ranked in position −4 (I totally dis-
fishing area. Because Factor 2 is composed mostly of small-scale fish-
agree), demonstrating that they did not perceive the benefits of the
ermen, this characteristic indicates that the fishing scale has influenced
Marine Protected Areas for the fishing activity in the area.
this perception.
Among the remaining ranked statements that do not appear in
As already demonstrated by other studies, users' perceptions are
Table 4 for the fishermen from Factor 1, the only statement classified
formed independently of the effects of the protected area or the man-
incorrectly was the ranking of statement number 35 ?The amount of fish
agement policies. They are influenced by several factors, from the social
decreases but never ends“which was ranked with a +1 (I agree a little),
context where the area was implemented to the type of management
which shows that these fishermen did not learn that the resources used
applied (Charles and Wilson, 2009). In this case, the ban on fishing in
by them are finite. This statement was selected to be part of the
an easily accessible region for small-scale Factor 2 fishermen has ne-
Qstatements to see if the fishermen of both fishing ranges knew that the
gatively influenced their perceptions about the prohibition of fishing in
fishery resources exploited by them were finite. The reason given by
Timbebas within the Abrolhos N.M.P.
fishermen of factor 1 to rank statement 35 with a −1 (I disagree a little)
Although the locale known as parcel das paredes is not located within
was “Fish are a thing from God, and it is God who decides whether or not we
the area of the Abrolhos N.M.P., this region was frequently mentioned
have fish.”
by the fishermen. According to the fishermen from the two fishing
For the fisherman from Factor 2, among other statements that are
scales, this region together with the reef section of Timbebas, which is
not in Table 4, they agree to statement number 35 ?The amount of fish
part of the Abrolhos N.M. P., are important fishing areas in the region.
decreases but never ends”. This was a wrong vision about the fisheries'
Understanding how the area of the Abrolhos N.M.P. and its sur-
resources, because it demonstrates that these fishermen do not perceive
roundings are used is very important, since mapping the fishing areas
the finitude of the fishing resources either. The explanation given by the
can lead to new actions for the management of the fisheries (Previero
fishermen from Factor 2 was the same as given by the fishermen from
and Gassala, 2018). In addition, understanding the characteristics of the
Factor 1: for them, the scarcity and recovery of the fish is explained by
fishing activity carried out can direct different access rules to the re-
their faith in God. This type of thinking is common in people with little
sources, according to the characteristics of each fishing fleet (Penino
schooling in Brazil. Many of these people believe God to be responsible
et al., 2016), noting that the human dimensions of these actions must be
for controlling the existence of resources and not mankind and its ac-
considered in the management of the MPA (Léopold et al., 2014).
tivities (Foale and Macintyre, 2005).
When participants had to take a stand regarding statement 3 which
In general, fishermen from both fishing scales are aware of the rules
says “The creation of the Abrolhos park improved the fishermen's lives”, the
of access and use of the resources. However, this does not mean that
fishermen from Factor 1 perceived the benefit and classified it in po-
they comply with them. Regarding statement number 31 ?I need to use
sition +1 (I agree a little), while Factor 2 fishermen ranked it at po-
the radio and give notice whenever I enter the area of the Abrolhos park.”,
sition −4 (I fully disagree).
both groups of fishermen (small and medium-scale) agreed with this
Again, the response from the fishermen from Factor 2 was strongly
statement and ranked it with a +1 (I agree a little) but do not comply
influenced by their fishing scale. These men had to change their fishing
with this standard.
spots and increase their navigation distances and their fuel expenses,
Although Factor 2 fishermen are aware of the current norm, many of

220
P.F. Bueno, A. Schiavetti
them claim not to comply with the standard because they do not have a
radio in their vessel, or when the vessel has radio communication, the
type of radio they have is the PX, a type of radio that cannot contact the
base of the Abrolhos park, because the island only has VHF radio as its
legal means of communication. For this reason, they are unable to
communicate their entry into the area of the Abrolhos N.M.P., although
they are aware of the norm. Factor 1 fishermen claim that although
they have VHF radio for communication on their vessels, they do not
report entry into the area because they are just passing through and
there is no need for communication.
The lack of signaling of the limits of the park is an important point
highlighted by the fishermen from Factor 2, who classified statement
number 5 ?Signaling the boundaries of the park helps the fishermen. “as the
most important and ranked it in position +3 (I agree a lot). These
fishermen claim that because they do not have GPS on their boats, they
cannot know exactly where the limits of the park are, and they can only
get an idea of where the Abrolhos N.M. P. is located through landmarks
at sea and on land. They say that they can cross over the Abrolhos
N.M.P.'s boundaries and fish illegally because they do not know exactly
where the PU boundary is.
Factor 1 fishermen do not feel this need, because unlike Factor 2
fishermen, they have GPS devices on their boats and this facilitates
finding the location of the park's boundaries. However, although they
do not feel so affected by this issue, they also find it important that the
Abrolhos N.M.P. has some kind of signaling that outlines its perimeter
to prevent GPS calculation errors from causing them to fish in a pro-
hibited area. For this reason, they ranked statement 5 in position +2 (I
agree a little).
4.3. Fishing and family tradition
The fishermen from Factor 2 attributed a lot of importance to
statement number 30 ?I have learned how to fish with my family.” with a
+4 (I Totally agree). The priority given to this statement demonstrates
that the learning of fishing and the tradition of this trade was a wide-
spread activity among fishermen from Factor 2 (Silva et al., 2009).
However, these same fishermen do not want their children to be fish-
ermen and continue the tradition. The financial difficulties and the
devaluation of the activity are their main reasons (Capellesso and
Cazella, 2011).
Meanwhile, the fishermen from Factor 1 have ranked statement
number 30 ?I have learned how to fish with my family.” with a 0
(Neutral), which indicates that for these fishermen the tradition of
learning the skill with their family was not considered to be an im-
portant aspect. For some of these fishermen, the justification for this
classification was that ” … I have learned on my own, no one else fishes in
my family … ”.
4.4. Social organization (fishing colonies)
Statement number 21, “I am part of the fishing colony.”, was ranked
among the most important and received the same score +3 (I strongly
agree) from the two factors of fishermen, having significant statistical
value for both factors. Although there are numerous complaints about
the performance of the fishing colonies, the fishermen from both factors
recognized that being associated with a colony is important to guar-
antee their rights such as retirement and insurance at the time of clo-
sure. This mandatory membership of the colonies comes from the time
when they were created by the government (Breton et al., 1996).
The lack of union among the class is also perceived by both factors.
Statement number 25,“Fishermen are not a united group.”, was also sig-
nificant for both factors. The difference was that Factor 2 fishermen
scored +3 (I strongly agree) for this statement, while Factor 1 fish-
ermen scored +2 (I agree). The creation of the fishing colonies was not
a demand coming from the fishermen but rather from the state, in this
case the Navy (Moraes, 2001). This historical factor, coupled with the
221
Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 214–224
fragility of a group characterized by illiteracy, lack of technical support,
disorganization, and internal conflicts among members, generated a
lack of unity among the class. This type of problem has already been
registered in the fishing colonies of the São Francisco river (MG), the
Patos Lagoon (RS), Paranaguá (PR), and Pernambuco (PE) (Valencio
et al., 2003; Kalikoski and Satterfield, 2004; Andrigueto et al., 2006;
Lessa et al., 2006).
Statement number 23, “My fishing documentation is always up-to-
date.”, was also considered important among both factors and had
significant statistical results. Factor 1 fishermen ranked this statement
with a +3 (I strongly agree), Factor 2 fishermen, on the other hand,
rated this statement with a +4 (I totally agree). The justification pro-
vided by fishermen from Factor 1 to explain the rank of statement 23
was " … The document of the people has to be correct. If you are irregular,
there are boat owners who do not allow you to work because that can give
them trouble … “. Factor 2 fishermen, however, justified the rank of
statement 23 as ” … If we become irregular we do not receive insurance,
and we cannot retire … ”. This concern of the fishermen from both
factors is related to the loss of employment or benefits such as in-
surance.
A lack of organization in institutions implies a loss of resilience,
with unorganized groups being unable to take necessary measures to
deal with change (Lengnick-Hall and Beck, 2009). In the case of the
fishermen from these two factors, they have been organized by keeping
their documentation up to date but rather disunited, which weakens the
decisionmaking power of the group.
After the Abrolhos N.M.P. was implemented, the main change faced
by the fishermen was an increase of surveillance in the region, because
of the existence of the PA. Therefore, as these fishermen proved to be
organized and attentive to these changes, the fishermen from both
factors were not harmed in this respect, making the SSE that they are
part of to be more resilient in this aspect.
4.5. Adaptation to change
The fishing market is also subject to market pressures such as in-
creased production. In order to keep up with the demands of the
market, the vessel used becomes a fundamental piece, as it will de-
termine the territoriality and the range of action in which the fishermen
can act (Prost, 2007). Statement number 18, “I change my fishing targets
so I can earn more.”, was used to understand whether the fishermen are
flexible and can adapt to changes in the market. This statement was
significant for both factors. Factor 1 fishermen have rated this state-
ment with a +4 (I Totally agree), while Factor 2 fishermen have rated
this statement with a +2 (I agree a little). Factor 1 fishermen put
statement number 18 in a position farther to the right of the rank be-
cause for this group it is easier to change their fishing target, even if this
resource is allocated elsewhere. Because their boats are larger and be-
cause they have more fish storage capacity, they can travel long dis-
tances whenever necessary (Rebouças et al., 2006).
On the other hand, Factor 2 fishermen said that they can also
change the target of their fishing but they are limited to a smaller area
of action, which is closer to the coast because their boats do not spend
many days at sea to perform long distances, as do the boats of medium-
scale fisheries (Prost, 2007). In this sense, the SES where the fishermen
from Factor 2 are inserted are less resilient because their capacity of
adaptation and flexibility to the changes are directly related to the
autonomy of the navigation of their boats.
4.6. The importance of versatility
Statement number 13, “Fishing is my only source of income.”, was
drawn to attention because it had a great difference of classification
between both fishing scales. In Factor 1, this statement was ranked with
a +1 (I agree a little); while in Factor 2, the statement was ranked with
a +4 (I totally agree).
P.F. Bueno, A. Schiavetti
Factor 2 fishermen who participated in the study stated that they
have no source of income other than fishing, and that this is the only
activity they can do. In this sense, because they depend solely on
fishing, Factor 2 fishermen become more vulnerable if there are any
problems or extreme changes in their work environment. This inflex-
ibility of having no other way to increase their income reduces their
ability to adapt to the imposed changes, making them less resilient. On
the other hand, when considering that these fishermen are always
working in the fishing industry, they tend to be more concerned with
fishery resources than fishermen who also have other off-farm jobs
(Dimech et al., 2009).
On the other hand, Factor 1 fishermen who participated in the study
said that although fishing is their main source of income, they do not
rely exclusively on this activity. They tend to do other “jobs” and get
involved in other types of activities. They do this as a way to supple-
ment their monthly income, and also to avoid losses when fishing is
low. The preventive behavior of these fishermen is a good strategy to
avoid problems such as low stock productivity, which negatively affects
their income.
5. Conclusion
According to Folke et al. (2002), the resilience of the SES is asso-
ciated with its capacity to learn, adapt and self-organize. In this study,
the three indicators used to understand the resilience of the socio-
ecological system were: learning, flexibility and organization. The
fishermen of the two different fishing scales (small and medium-scale)
showed that they have different positions in relation to these indicators
through their perceptions, which are reflected in differences in the re-
silience of the SES.
In terms of the learning indicator, the two fishing scales are aware of
the importance of the implementation of the Abrolhos N.M.P. and of the
standards in this MPA. However, Factor 2 fishermen are against the ban
on fishing in the Timbebas area because this area was an important
fishing ground used by them. This indicates that they have failed to
learn and understand the importance of this area as a nursery that helps
maintain fishing in the region. In addition, being aware of the rules of
use and access to the resources established by the MPA does not mean
that they are fulfilled and adhered to. Factor 2 fishermen often do not
properly enforce standards due to lack of equipment on their vessels. It
is still common today to disseminate news about illegal fishing carried
out within the park area (ICMBIO, 2015; O Eco, 2016). As for the
flexibility indicator, it became evident that Factor 2 fishermen have
limitations to change fishing grounds or fishing targets if they are too
far away from the places where they usually work. Meanwhile, the size
of the vessels used by Factor 1 fishermen gives them greater freedom to
work in areas further off the coast. Thus, the size of the vessels, as well
as their sea autonomy, lead Factor 2 fishermen to have less freedom to
choose their fishing grounds, which make them less flexible in this re-
gard. Still with respect to the flexibility indicator, it was noticed that
the fact that fishermen from Factor 2 have fishing as their only source of
income makes them more vulnerable if a bad fishing season occurs, or if
there are changes in the marine environment that hinder the activity
within the fishing grounds where they work. This factor further di-
minishes their flexibility, i.e. their ability to adapt to change.
In terms of the organizational indicator, the fishermen from both
fishing scales showed that although they are organized within the
fishing colonies, they do not feel well represented by them and there-
fore do not believe in the power of the institution, considering the
group to be disunion. This kind of negative image, coupled with a
disbelief in the effectiveness of the colony, tends to weaken the group's
sense of unity and can de-structure its organization.
When comparing both groups of fishermen, it was observed that
Factor 2 fishermen did not learn about the importance of the existence
of the Abrolhos N.M.P. for the preservation of fishing in the region.
Moreover, their limited flexibility in terms of shifting their fishing spots
222
Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 214–224
closer to the coast to more distant areas, coupled with a strong sense of
disunion within the group, demonstrates that these fishermen are less
organized, less flexible and learn less than Factor 1 fishermen. This
shows that Factor 2 fishermen have more difficulty adapting to changes
when compared to fishermen from Factor I.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the National Council for Scientific
and Technological.Development (CNPQ) for the masters' scholarship
awarded to the first author and for the productivity scholarship
awarded to the second author. To Alexandra Maria Camilo, for the
English revision (Fulbright English Teaching Assistant of UESC). And
also, thanks to the fishermen colonies from the municipalities of Nova
Viçosa, Caravelas, Alcobaca and Prado, as well as all the fishermen who
were willing to participate in the present study.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.12.008.
References
Alexander, J., Chen, P., Damerell, P., Youkui, W., Hughes, J., Shi, K., Riordan, P., 2015.
Human wildlife conflict involving large carnivores in Qilianshan, China and the
minimal paw-print of snow leopards. Biol. Conserv. 187, 1–9.
Andrade, G.S.M., Rhodes, J.R., 2012. Protected areas and local communities: an in-
evitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies. Ecol. Soc. 17 (4) 16pp.
Andrigueto, F.P.T.C., Chaves, P.T., Santos, C., Liberati, S.A., 2006. Diagnóstico da pesca
no estado do Paraná. In: Isaac, V.J. (Ed.), A Pesca Marinha e Estuarina do Brasil no
início do século XXI: recursos, tecnologias. aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais.
UFPA- Belém, pp. 117–140 et al. (Org).
Andriolo, A., Kinas, P.G., Engel, M.H., Martins, C.C.C., Rufino, A.M., 2010. Humpback
whales within the Brazilian breeding ground: distribution and population size esti-
mate. Endanger. Species Res. 11, 233–243.
Angeler, D.G., Allen, C.R., 2016. Quantifying resilience. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 617–624.
Asah, S.T., Bengston, D.N., Wendt, K., Nelson, K.C., 2012. Diagnostic reframing of in-
tractable environmental problems: case of a contested multiparty public land-use
conflict. J. Environ. Manag. 108, 108–119.
Ban, N.C., Adams, V.M., Almany, G.R., Ban, S., Cinner, J.E., Mccook, L.J., Mills, M.,
Pressey, R.L., White, A., 2011. Designing, implementing and managing marine pro-
tected areas: emerging trends and opportunities for coral reef nations. J. Exp. Mar.
Biol. Ecol. 408 (1), 21–31.
Batista, V.S., Fabré, N.N., Malhado, A.C.M., Ladle, R.J., 2014. Tropical artisanal coastal
fisheries:challenges and future directions. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 22 (1), 1–15.
Bavinck, M., Vivekanandan, V., 2011. Conservation, conflict and the governance of Fisher
wellbeing: analysis of the establishment of the Gulf of Mannar national park and
biosphere reserve. Environ. Manag. 47 (4), 593–602.
Begossi, A., Lopes, P.F., Oliveira, L.E.C., Nakano, H., 2009. Ecologia de pescadores ar-
tesanais da Baía de Ilha Grande. FIFO – Rio de Janeiro 254pp.
Bennett, N.J., Dearden, P., 2014. From measuring outcomes to providing inputs: gov-
ernance, management, and local development for more effective marine protected
areas. Mar. Pol. 50, 96–110.
Berkers, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices
and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, vol. 1 Cambridge University 437pp.
Berkers, F., Folke, C., Colding, J., 2003. In: Berkers, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.),
Synthesis: Building Resilience and Adaptative Capacity in Social-Ecological Systems.
Cambrige University Press, United Kingdom, pp. 352–359.
Breton, I., Benazera, C., Plante, S., Cavanagh, J., 1996. Fisheries Management and the
Colonias in Brazil: a Case Study of Top-down Producers. vol. 9. Society & Natural
Resources, pp. 307–315.
Brown, S.R., 1993. A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subj. 16 (3/4), 91138.
Bryant, L.D., Ahmed, S., Ahmed, M., Jafri, H., Raashid, Y., 2011. All is done by Allah’.
Understandings of Down syndrome and prenatal testing in Pakistan. Soc. Sci. Med. 72
(8), 1393–1399.
Buikstra, E., Ross, H., King, C.A., Baker, P.G., Hegney, D., Mclaclha, N.K., Clark, C.R.,
2010. The components of resilience—perceptions of an Australian rural community.
J. Community Psychol. 38 (8), 975–991.
Buckley, C., 2012. Implementation of the EU nitrates directive in the republic of Ireland -
a view from the farm. Ecol. Econ. 78, 29–36.
Capellesso, A.J., Cazella, A., 2011. A. pesca artesanal entre crise econômica e problemas
socioambientais: estudo de caso nos municípios de Garopaba e Imbituba (SC).
Ambiente Sociedade 14 (2), 15–33.
Carvalho, N., Jones, G.E., Isidro, E., 2011. Defining scale in fisheries: small versus large-
scale fishing operations in the Azores. Fish. Res. 109, 360–369.
Cavalcanti, S.C., Marchini, S., Zimmermann, A., Gese, E.M., Macdonald, D., 2010.
Jaguars, livestock, and people in Brazil: realities and perceptions behind the conflict.
P.F. Bueno, A. Schiavetti
In: Macdonald, Loveridge (Eds.), THE BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF WILD
FELIDS. Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom, pp. 83–402.
Charles, A., Wilson, L., 2009. Human dimensions of marine protected areas. J. Mar. Sci.
66 (1), 6–15.
Claudet, J., 2011. Marine Protected Areas: a Multidisciplinary Approach. Cambridge
University 377pp.
Cinner, J., Fuentes, M.P.B., Randriamahazo, H., 2009. Exploring social resilience in
Madagascar's marine protected areas. Ecol. Soc. 14 (1) 41pp.
Cote, M., Nightingale, A.J., 2012. Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social
change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36 (4),
475–489.
Danesh, N.A., Dehghan, M., Morrison, K.M., Fonseka, S., 2011. Parent's perception and
attitudes on childhood obesity: a Q-methodology study. J. Am. Acad. Nurse Pract. 23
(2), 67–75.
Davies, B.B., Hodge, I.A., 2012. Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: re-
peated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures. Ecol. Econ. 83, 51–57.
Dickman, A.J., 2010. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors
for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim. Conserv. 13 (5), 458–466.
Dimech, M., Darmanin, M., Smith, I.P., Kaiser, M.J., Schembri, P.J., 2009. Fisher's per-
ception of a 35-year old exclusive Fisheries Management Zone. Biol. Conserv. 142
(11), 2691–2702.
Dutra, G.F., Camargo, E., Santos, C.A.P., Ceotto, P., 2011. Abrolhos: desafios para a
conservação e o desenvolvimento sustentável na área com a maior biodiversidade
marinha do Atlântico Sul. J. Field Act. 3 6pp.
Ellingsen, I.T., Storksen, I., Stephens, P., 2010. Q methodology in social work research.
Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 13 (5), 395409.
Exel, V., Graaf, J.G., 2005. Q methodology: a sneak preview. Online document. 30pp.
FAERJ - Federação Da Agricultura, Pecuária E Pesca Do Esta Do Do Rio De Janeiro,
SEBRAE-RJ. Serviço De Apoio As Micro E Pequenas Empresas, 2009. Diagnóstico da
cadeia produtiva da pesca marítima no Estado do Rio de Janeiro: relatório de pes-
quisa. Rio de Janeiro. 200pp.
Francini-Filho, R.B., Moura, R.L., 2008. Dynamics of fish assemblages on coral reefs
subjected to different management regimes in the Abrolhos Bank, eastern Brazil.
Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 18 (7), 11661179.
Filho, F.D.B., Junior, S.J.A., 2010. Visão além do alcance: uma introdução à análise fa-
torial. Opinião Pública 16 (1), 160–185.
Fischer, J., Gardner, T.A., Bennett, E.M., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., Daw, T.,
Folke, C., Hill, R., Hughes, T.P., Luthe, T., Maass, M., Meacham, M., Norstöm, A.V.,
Peterson, G., Queiros, C., Seppelt, R., Spierenburg, M., Tenhunen, J., 2015.
Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems per-
spective. Environ. Sustain. 14, 144–149.
Frate, C.A., 2011. Etanol e sustentabilidade: avaliação sistêmica de segurança alimentar e
nutricional. PhD Thesis (in portuguese). University of Brasília, sustainable devel-
opment center, Brasília, Distrito Federal 156pp.
Fréon, P., Avadí, A., Soto, W.M., Negrón, R., 2014. Environmentally extended comparison
table of large- versus small- and medium-scale fisheries: the case of the Peruvian
anchoveta fleet. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 71, 1459–1474.
Foale, S., Macintyre, M., 2005. Fantasías verdes: representaciones fotográficas de la
biodiversidad y el ecoturismo en el Pacífico Occidental. J. Political Ecol. 12, 1–24.
Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analyses. Global Environ. Change 16 (3), 253–267.
Folke, C., Carpernter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holing, C.S., Walker, B., 2002.
Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of
transformations. J. Human Environ. 31 (5), 437–440.
Folke, C., 2001. Social-ecological Resilience and Behavioural Responses. Beijer
International Institute of Ecological Economics, pp. 1–18.
Gaines, S.D., Lester, S.E., Colvert, K.G., Costello, C., Pollnac, R., 2010. Evolving science of
marine reserves: new developments and emerging research frontiers. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 107 (43), 18251–18255.
Gunderson, L.H., 2000. Ecological resilience in theory and application. Annu. Rev. Ecol.
Systemat. 31, 425–439.
Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol.
Systemat. 1 (4), 1–23.
IBAMA - Instituto Brasileiro Do Meio Ambiente E Dos Recursos naturais renovaveis, 1991.
Plano de Manejo Parque Nacional Marinho dos Abrolhos. Brasília, 253pp.
ICMBIO - Instituto Chico Mendes – Combate a pesca ilegal em Abrolhos. 2015 http://
www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/ultimas-noticias/20-geral/6714-icmbio-combate-
pescailegal-em-abrolhos (accessed 15 march 2015).
Johson, T., Henry, A., Thompson, C., 2014. Qualitative indicators of social resilience in
small-scale fishing communities: an emphasis on perceptions and practice. Hum.
Ecol. Rev. 20 (2) 97-11.
Johnson, D.S., 2006. Category, narrative, and value in the governance of small-scale
fisheries. Mar. Pol. 30, 747–756.
Júnior, W.S.F., Nascimento, A.L.B., Ramos, M.A., Medeiros, P.M., Soldati, G.T.,
Albuquerque, U.P., 2013. Resiliência e adaptação em sistemas socioecológicos. In:
Albuquerque, U.P. (Ed.), Etnobiologia Bases ecológicas e evolutivas. Recife, NUPEA,
pp. 64–84.
Kalikoski, D.C., Satterfield, T., 2004. On crafting a fisheries co-management arrangement
in the estuary of Patos Lagoon (Brazil): opportunities and challenges faced through
implementation. Mar. Pol. 28 (6), 503–522.
Karanth, K.K., Gopalaswamy, A.M., Prasad, P.K., Dasgupta, S., 2013. Patterns of hu-
man–wildlife conflicts and compensation: insights from Western Ghats protected
areas. Biol. Conserv. 166, 175–185.
Laros, J.A., 2005. O uso da análise fatorial: algumas diretrizes para pesquisadores. In:
Pasquali, L. (Ed.), Análise fatorial para pesquisadores. LabPAM Saber e Tecnologia,
Brasília – DF, pp. 163–184.
223
Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 214–224
Leão, Z.A.M.N., Kikuchi, R.K.P., 2005. A relic coral fauna threatened by global changes
and human activities Eastern Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51, 599–611.
Leleu, K., Alban, F., Pelletier, D., Charbnnel, E., Letourneur, Y., Boudouresque, C.,F.,
2012. Fisher's perceptions as indicators of the performance of Marine Protected Areas
(MPAs). Mar. Pol. 36 (2), 414–422.
Lessa, R., Vieira, A.C.D.S., Monteiro, A., Santos, J.S., Lima, M.M.D., Cunha, E.J.D.,
Oliveira, A.B.R., 2006. Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do estado de Pernambuco. In:
Isaac, V.J. (Ed.), A Pesca Marinha e Estuarina do Brasil no início do século XXI:
recursos, tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais. UFPA, Belém, pp.
67–91.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T.E., 2009. Resilience capacity and strategic agility:
Prerequisites for thriving in a dynamic environment. In: In: Nemeth, C., Hollnagel, E.,
Dekker, S. (Eds.), Resilience engineering perspectives, vol. 2 Ashgate Publishing,
United Kingdom 45pp.
Léopold, M., Guillemot, N., Rockin, D., Chen, C., 2014. A framework for mapping small-
scale coastal fisheries using Fishers' knowledge. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 71 (7), 1781–1792.
Lopes, P.F.M., Rosa, E.M., Salyvonchyk, S., Nora, V., Begossi, A., 2013. Suggestions for
fixing top-down coastal fisheries management through participatory approaches.
Mar. Pol. 40, 100–110.
Marshall, N.A., Marshall, P.A., 2007. Conceptualizing and operationalizing social resi-
lience within commercial fisheries in northern Australia. Ecol. Soc. 12 (1) 14pp.
Mazzei, E.F., Bertoncini, A.A., Pinheiro, H.T., Machado, L.F., Vilar, C.C., Guabiroba, H.C.,
Costa, T.J.F., Bueno, L.S., Santos, L.N., Francini-Filho, R.B., Hostim-Silva, M., Joyeux,
J.-C., 2016. Newly discovered reefs in the southern Abrolhos Bank, Brazil: anthro-
pogenic impacts and urgent conservation needs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114 (1), 123–133.
Mcclanahan, T.R., Maina, J., Davies, J., 2005. Perceptions of resource users and managers
towards fisheries management options in Kenyan coral reefs. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 12,
105–112.
Maclean, K., Cuthill, M., Ross, H., 2014. Six attributes of social resilience. J. Environ.
Plann. Manag. 57 (1), 144–156.
Moraes, S.C., 2001. Colônias de pescadorese a luta pela cidadania. In: Congresso
Brasileiro de Sociologia, vol. 10 UFC, Fortaleza 7 pp.
Nepal, S.K., 2002. Linking parks and people: Nepal's experience in resolving conflicts in
parks and protected areas. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 9 (1), 75–90.
Newman, I., Ramlo, S., 2010. Using Q methodology and Q factor analysis in mixed
methods research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods
in Social and Behavioral Research. vol. 1. pp. 505–530.
Niedziałkowskia, K., Komar, E., Kaszyńska, A.P., Olszańska, A., Jurczak, M.G., 2018.
Discourses on public participation in protected areas governance: application of Q
methodology in Poland. Ecol. Econ. 145, 401–409.
OECO, 2016. Abrolhos sofre com sobrepesca e queda no número de visitantes. http://
www.oeco.org.br/reportagens/29160-abrolhos-sofre-com-sobrepesca-e-queda-
nonumero-de-visitantes/, Accessed date: 30 March 2016.
O ECO, 2014. Dilma Quer Criar Suas Primeiras UCS Decuplicando Abrolhos. http://
www.oeco.org.br/noticias/25994-dilma-quer-criar-suas-primeiras-ucsdecuplicando-
abrolhos/, Accessed date: 15 May 2014.
Ohrens, O., Treve, A., Bonacic, C., 2016. Relationship between rural depopulation and
puma-human conflict in the high Andes of Chile. Environ. Conserv. 43 (1), 24–33.
Ouréns, R., Cambiè, G., Freire, J., 2015. Characterizing the complexity of the fleet dy-
namics for an effective fisheries management: the case of the Cíes Islands (NW Spain).
Sci. Mar. 79 (4), 1–17.
Penino, M.G., Souza, M.J.F.T., Carvalho, A.R., Fontes, L.C.S., Parente, C., Lopes, P.F.M.,
2016. A spatial multivariate approach to understand what controls species catch
composition in small-scale fisheries. Fish. Res. 175, 132–141.
Previero, M., 2014. The Greenbeack Parrotfish (Scarus Trispinosus Valenciennes, 1840),
Fishery on the Largest South Atlantic Coral Reef Complex. PhD Thesis (In portu-
guese). University of Maringá, Dep. of Biology, Maringá, Paraná 71pp.
Previero, M., Gassala, M., 2018. 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, 83–95.
Prost, C., 2007. Ecodesenvolvimento da pesca artesanal em região costeira – estudos de
caso no norte e nordeste do pais. GeoTextos 3 (1), 139–169.
Rastogi, A., Hickey, G.M., Badola, R., Hussain, S.A., 2013. Diverging viewpoints on tiger
conservation: AQ-method study and survey of conservation professionals in India.
Biol. Conserv. 161, 182–192.
Ray, L., 2011. Using Q-methodology to identify local perspectives on wildfires in two
Koyukon Athabascan communities in rural Alaska. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 7 (2),
18–29.
Rebouças, G.N.M., Filardi, A.C.L., Vieira, P.F., 2006. Gestão integrada e participativa da
pesca artesanal: potencialidades e obstáculos no litoral do Estado de Santa Catarina.
In: In: Jacobi, P.R., Ferreira, L.C., leis, H.R. (Eds.), Ambiente e Sociedade, vol. 9. pp.
83–104 2.
Ross, H., Mcgee, T., 2006. Conceptual frameworks for SIA revisited: a cumulative effects
study on lead contamination and economic change. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 24
(2), 139–149.
Ruttan, L.M., Sumaila, U.R., Pauly, D., centre, F., 2000. Small versus large scale fisheries:
a multi-species multi-fleet model for evaluating their interactions and potential
benefits. In: In: Pauly, D., Pitcher, T.J. (Eds.), Methods for Evaluating the Impacts of
Fisheries on North Atlantic Ecosystems, vol. 8. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, pp.
64–78 2.
Santos, A.N., 2015. Fisheries as a way of life: gendered livelihoods, identities and per-
spectives of artisanal fisheries in eastern Brazil. Mar. Pol. 62, 279–288.
Silva, M.E.P.A., Castro, P.M.G., Maruyama, L.S., Paiva, P., 2009. Levantamento da pesca e
perfil socioeconômico dos pescadores artesanais profissionais no reservatório
Billings. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca 35 (4), 531–543.
Silva, M., Lopes, P.F.M., 2014. Each fisherman is different: taking the environmental
P.F. Bueno, A. Schiavetti
perception of small-scale fishermen into account to manage marine protected areas.
Mar. Pol. 51, 347–355.
Thompson, D., 1980. Conflict within the Fishing Industry. Newsletter Iclarm, Manila,
pp. 1–3.
Valencio, N.F.L.S., Leme, F.L.S., Martins, A.A., Mendonça, R.C., Gonçalves, S.A.T.,
Mancuso, I.M., Felix, S.A., 2003. A precarização do trabalho no território das águas:
limitações atuais ao exercício da pesca profissional no alto-médio São Francisco. In:
Godinho, P.H., Godinho, A.L., org (Eds.), Águas, peixes e pescadores do São Francisco
das Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte: PUC Minas, pp. 424446.
Voyer, M., Gladstone, W., Goodall, H., 2013. Understanding marine park opposition: the
relationship between social impacts, environmental knowledge and motivation to
224
Ocean and Coastal Management 169 (2019) 214–224
fish. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24 (4), 441–462.
Watts, S., Stenner, P., 2005. Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation.
Qual. Res. Psychol. 2 (1), 67–91.
Wilshusen, P.R., Brechin, S.R., Fortwangler, C.,L., West, P.C., 2002. Reinventing a square
wheel: critique of a resurgent ʺProtection Paradigmʺ in: international biodiversity
conservation. Soc. Nat. Resour. 15 (1), 17–40.
Woolley, J.T., Mccginnis, M.V., 2000. The conflicting discourses of restoration. Soc. Nat.
Resour. 13 (4), 339–357.
Zambonim, R., Wedekin, L.L., Farias, U.A., 2009. A Comunidade de Pescadores de
Caravelas, Sul da Bahia. Nova cartografia social 12, 1–12.