| dc.contributor.author | Andalecio, Merlina N. | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2014-10-21T12:38:02Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2004 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2004 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.other | AAINQ94039 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10222/54653 | |
| dc.description | Efforts to assess the impacts of fisheries management are usually directed towards determining the effects of a single management intervention. However, the current state and future directions of many coastal fisheries make this approach inadequate because no single management intervention is able to satisfy the multi-level and conflicting goals of coastal fisheries in many tropical developing countries. The achievement of these goals is determined by the interaction of various management interventions collectively referred to as a management strategy, and its assessment should be based on a general framework of a multi-criteria evaluation consisting of multiple evaluation criteria and indicators, preference system of decision-makers, and an aggregation procedure. Yet, the literature presents limited frameworks in dealing with the multi-dimensional impacts of fisheries management. | en_US |
| dc.description | This research investigated the implications of applying multi-criteria evaluation methods to determine the integrated impacts of management in the coastal fisheries using San Miguel Bay, Philippines as a case study. The elements of a multi-criteria evaluation were categorized into three dimensions: temporal, spatial and systemic. The temporal dimension deals with the time line of impacts while spatial dimension characterizes the geographic location (local, national or global) where management strategies are implemented. The systemic dimension is nested within the temporal and spatial dimensions, and it consists of the interactions between humans and natural systems. It is also in the systemic dimension where scientific/technical knowledge and perceptual experience interface with each other. A number of multi-criteria evaluation methods applied in operational research and decision-making analyses were examined to ascertain their applicability in fisheries. The strengths, challenges and typology of uncertainties in the application of these methods to fisheries impact evaluation led to the development of a proposed impact evaluation technique for fisheries management. The technique which is a hybrid of Concordance Analysis, Mixed Evaluation and the Analytic Hierarchy Process is able to handle quantitative and qualitative information, and incorporate judgments of multiple stakeholders. The results of the preference analysis revealed that among the coastal resource users, the fisherfolks exhibited consistency in judgment with respect to the importance of criteria and indicators. Although this technique is labor intensive, it has the advantage of direct involvement of fishers and local managers in the evaluation. Its application may be limited in post-hoc evaluation because of incomplete data sets, however, reliability of the results may be improved if this is integrated at the start of a management program. | en_US |
| dc.description | Thesis (Ph.D.)--Dalhousie University (Canada), 2004. | en_US |
| dc.language | eng | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Dalhousie University | en_US |
| dc.publisher | | en_US |
| dc.subject | Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture. | en_US |
| dc.title | Development of a multi-criteria evaluation technique to assess the impacts of fisheries management in a Philippine bay. | en_US |
| dc.type | text | en_US |
| dc.contributor.degree | Ph.D. | en_US |
