Similarities Between Community And Society Pdf 16 Operativo Economia T
However, not all individuals age in the same way, highlighting between-subject variability in cognitive aging (Ferreira et al. 2017). This is clearly illustrated in our current study by a substantial number of older individuals who managed to maintain a high level of performance in PF (the OA-HP group), which was as high as the level of performance in the YA-HP group. Hence, reduced efficiency and increased transitivity associated with HP in older individuals suggests that this pattern of network organization can also be effective, possibly underlying compensatory mechanisms. This interpretation is further supported by the finding of reduced efficiency and increased transitivity associated with HP in young individuals with HP in PF (the YA-HP group). In the next paragraphs we elaborate on several findings that allowed us to further disentangle this overall network similarities related to both higher performance and OA.
Similarities Between Community And Society Pdf 16 operativo economia t
On the other hand, while some approaches have focused their attention on altruism or the orientation towards benefiting others through prosocial perspectives, other lines of research has also highlighted how, at the community level, a common good approach in the management of common property assets provide social capital and advantages with social self-organization, producing positive effects for society.
Adaptive comanagement is a long-term collective action strategy that allows interested parties to share responsibilities within a specific natural resource system. Furthermore, such a strategy enables these parties to learn from their actions, ensuring sustainable local use of available resources (Ruitenbeek and Cartier 2001, Olsson et al. 2004, Armitage et al. 2007, Berkes 2009). Adaptive comanagement is based on the formulation of legal agreements that are politically negotiated between local residents (direct resource users) and different administrative levels. Through these agreements, residents are given the responsibility of making decisions regarding access to and use of natural resources in exchange for guaranteed benefits. Adaptive comanagement is appropriate for managing social-ecological systems (SESs), which require participatory approaches in terms of the interaction, deliberation, learning, and participation of stakeholders from the community and government (Schusler et al. 2003, Berkes 2010, Trimble and Berkes 2015).
With a view to presenting a vision of the current status of each of the eight principles in the communities by fishing gear, statistical descriptions were used (percentages). Finally, to build a community vision of the fishers and to explore the relationships between the eight principles and the reasons for prioritization, redundancy analyses (RDAs) were performed for each community. RDA is a method of extracting and summarizing the variance in a set of response variables that can be explained by a set of explanatory variables. RDA is a direct gradient analysis technique that summarizes the linear relationships between the components of response variables that are redundant with (i.e., explained by) a set of explanatory variables. RDA is an alternative to canonical correlation analysis (Buttigieg and Ramette 2014).
To explore the relationships between the principles, fishing gear, and reasons for prioritization and to build a community vision on the status of the principles, RDAs were carried out for each community. Although the methodological design proposed one analysis per type of fishing gear, when the gear is excluded from the analyses, a greater percentage of total variance is explained in each analysis. This difference indicates that there is a community vision of the status of the principles in each of the communities under study, regardless of the fishing gear used by the participants.
The absence of empowered community organizations, the lack of community work, and the establishment of institutional hierarchal levels for enforcing regulations and agreements, supervision, implementation, conflict resolution, and governance, according to that which is established by P8 (nested enterprises; Cox et al. 2010, Trimble and Berkes 2015, Baggio et al. 2016), substantiate this prioritization. Given the multiple uses of the fishing areas in both communities, this principle may be essential for establishing biophysical limits between resource users (P1A) and resource limits (P1B; Cox et al. 2010, Fleischman et al. 2014) Therefore, delegation of authority to the communities and the creation of committees at all levels where fishers can come together, such as in communities and local, regional, and national institutions, are essential. In this way, a network can be established for maintaining effective communication (Saavedra-Díaz 2012), fostering an equitable distribution of authority (Berkes 2009), and designing systems that decentralize power, such as polycentric systems (Carlsson 2000, Fleischman et al. 2014), horizontal interactions (Fleischman et al. 2014), and policy networks (Carlsson 2000, McGinnis 2000).
However, the aforementioned situation in Taganga does not ensure full compliance with these principles. To strengthen and advance principles P4A, P4B, and P5, fishers and leaders recommend regulating the fisheries sector (Saavedra-Díaz et al. 2016), improving the fishing authority infrastructure, and coordinating national and local fishery policies. These efforts will encourage collaborative monitoring of compliance with regulations and of resources under governmental supervision (Fleischman et al. 2014, Berkes 2015, Saavedra-Díaz et al. 2016) and will help to avoid bribes and favor enforcement (Trimble and Berkes 2015, Saavedra-Díaz et al. 2016), thereby promoting the involvement of civil society and the international community interested in natural resource protection (Fleischman et al. 2014), and to encourage participatory research in which fishers and researchers work side by side (Saavedra-Díaz et al. 2016). The weaknesses identified in 2009, 2012, and 2014 (Table 2) coincide with the reasons expressed by the fishers in both communities when they prioritized the principles in 2017 (Table 4) and with the approaches made by other authors.
We acknowledge differences between both case studies, notably, the number of principles prioritized by a significant proportion of fishers in the community of Taganga is lower than that prioritized by fishers in Tumaco. However, this should not be understood as better preparation in the community of Taganga for the implementation of a system for fishery resource comanagement because previous studies of these communities reflect that, in general terms, Pacific communities are more aware of the need for regulations (Saavedra-Díaz et al. 2016). Furthermore, Tumaco, in particular, has made significant progress toward the comanagement of its resources through lobbying processes and the empowerment of marine fishers (Beardon 2008, Saavedra-Díaz et al. 2014, Jiménez-Torres 2016).
When advancing the implementation of a participatory management strategy such as comanagement, the emergence of conflicts between the actors involved seems unavoidable. However, these conflicts may be regarded as a triggering factor or opportunity to move forward in the process (Pomeroy and Berkes 1997, Plummer and FitzGibbon 2004, Trimble and Berkes 2015) or as a challenge posed to such a process (Napier et al. 2005, Pomeroy 2007, Armitage et al. 2009). The cross-cutting conflicts identified by our study (conflicts of interest, lack of community work, and participation) are considered determinants of the failure of adaptive comanagement processes (Plummer et al. 2012, Trimble and Berkes 2015).