Page 4 - Bennett_DiFranco_alii2018

4of10 BENNETT ET AL.

survey contained questions related to (a) basic demographic TA BLE 2 Overview of perceptions categories and associated
information and characteristics of individual small-scale fish- survey items (see Supporting Information Materials—Table S2 for
ermen (see Supporting Information Materials—Table S1); (b) details)
perceptions of ecological effectiveness, social impacts, gover- Category Items
nance, and management; and (c) levels of support of small- Perceptions of • Fish abundance
scale fishermen for the MPA (see Supporting Information ecological • Marine habitats
Materials—Table S2). effectiveness
The survey was designed by the project team, shared with Perceptions of social • Income
project partners for feedback, pretested, finalized, and trans- impacts • Livelihoods
lated. Small-scale fishermen were informed about the purpose • Food security
of the survey and the intended use of data, as well as how
• Knowledge and education
survey data from the project would be kept both anonymous
• Community social well-being
and confidential, prior to being asked for verbal consent and
• Cultural connection to nature
proceeding with the survey. On average, we surveyed 69.5%
• Fairness of impacts
(min–max = 34.2–100%) of small–scale fishermen in 11 com-
munities (Table 1). Surveys were conducted on paper, and Perceptions of good • Recognition
then returned to the project team for data entry and analysis. governance • Communication of information
• Transparency in decision-making
• Participation and voice
2.3 Perceptions indicators and composite • Consultation and consent
scores development • Accountability
This paper focuses on survey questions related to small-scale • Conflict management and resolution
fishermen's perceptions of ecological effectiveness, social •Trust
impacts, and good governance as well as levels of support •Rule of law
of small-scale fishermen for conservation (see Table 2 and • Legitimacy
Supporting Information Materials—Table S2). For each
Support for • Level of support for the marine
topic, we defined one or multiple items and developed
conservation protected area
indicators. Perceptions of ecological effectiveness were
measured with two indicators of perceived impacts on
fish abundance and habitat quality (Christie, 2005; Leleu
et al., 2012). For social impacts, we developed a series of was examined with a single question regarding the level of
indicators that were of interest to project partners related to support of small-scale fishermen for the MPA.
the categories of human well-being (Biedenweg et al., 2016; We constructed three composite scores to represent per-
Kaplan-Hallam & Bennett 2017). In particular, we focused ceptions of ecological effectiveness, social impacts, and good
on perceived impacts of the MPA on individual income governance by combining items related to that topic (see
(economic), livelihoods (economic), food security (health), Table 2). To account for different scales among the indicators,
knowledge and education (social), community well-being we first normalized each individual indicator to a scale of 0–2
(social), connections to nature (cultural), and fairness of to enable comparison. Prior to combining items, we assessed
distribution of impacts and benefits (economic). Finally, the internal coherence of the indicators in each composite
the survey contained indicators focused on the normative score using Cronbach's alpha (>0.7 in all cases). Finally, indi-
assessment of good governance (Bennett & Satterfield 2018; cators within each group were summed and then normalized
Borrini-Feyerabend & Hill 2015; Lockwood, 2010) including on scale of 0–10 to obtain the final composite scores for eco-
indicators related to recognition, transparency, accountabil- logical effectiveness, social impacts, and good governance. If
ity, communication, participation, consultation and consent, any indicator was missing, no score could be calculated and
conflict management, trust, rule of law, and legitimacy. The that survey was omitted.
indicator for recognition was constructed using four items
related to the extent to which small-scale fishermen's rights,
2.4 Analysis
livelihoods, traditional knowledge, and culture were consid-
ered in management (Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017). Similarly, the Descriptive tables were used to examine demographics and
legitimacy score was constructed using the combined means characteristics of small-scale fishermen, levels of support,
of two items related to satisfaction with decision-making perceptions indicators, and composite scores. Univariate asso-
processes and management actions. Support for conservation ciations with level of support were assessed using chi-squared