1,721,223 research outputs found
Evaluation de la qualité externe de l'information géographique: une approche ontologique
No full text
Small_Scale_Fishery_ Fish2Sustainability _Data_2023
No full text<p><strong>Dataset name -</strong> World_ IRD_ Small_Scale_Fishery_Data_2023</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Title:</strong> Qualitative Data on 61 Small-Scale Fisheries: A socio-ecological rapid appraisal applied to cases from Colombia, Ecuador, France, Kenya, Madagascar, Mexico, and Nigeria.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Description</strong></p>
<p>This dataset was created for the Fish2Sustainability research project, which aims to evaluate how small-scale fisheries (SSF) contribute to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The dataset includes 61 case studies across seven countries and was developed using a rapid appraisal framework. The framework includes a four-step process:</p>
<ol>
<li>Identifying specific SDG targets influenced by SSF;</li>
<li>Extracting relevant variables from UN indicators;</li>
<li>Gathering expert input via a questionnaire to score these variables;</li>
<li>Creating composite indicators to measure SSF performance against SDGs.</li>
</ol>
<p>The dataset contains raw data from step 3, case study details, variable scores, and comments from data collectors (contributing authors). The dataset is valuable for researchers interested in small-scale fisheries and socio-ecological systems. By incorporating expert judgments from individuals with expertise in SSF, particularly in data-poor contexts, the dataset offers a wealth of knowledge for conducting comparative analyses across different contexts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Authors</strong></p>
<p>Léopold, M.<sup>1</sup>, Bitoun, R.E.<sup>2</sup>, Chuenpagdee, R.<sup>3</sup>, Fondo, E.N.<sup>4</sup>, Akintola, S.L.<sup>5</sup>, Bach, P.<sup>6</sup>, Frangoudes, K.<sup>7</sup>, Gaibor, N.<sup>8</sup>, Gutierrez-Cala, L.<sup>9</sup>, Massey, Y.<sup>6</sup>, Randrianandrasana, R.<sup>10</sup>, Razanakoto, T.<sup>10</sup>, Saavedra-Díaz, L.M.<sup>9</sup>, Salas, S.<sup>11</sup>, Devillers, R.<sup>2, 3</sup></p>
<p><strong>Affiliations</strong></p>
<p><sup>1</sup> ENTROPIE (IRD, University of La Reunion, CNRS, University of New Caledonia, Ifremer), c/o IUEM, Plouzané, France</p>
<p><sup>2</sup> Espace-Dev (IRD, Univ. Montpellier, Univ. Guyane, Univ. La Réunion, Univ. Antilles, Univ. Nouvelle Calédonie), Montpellier, France</p>
<p><sup>3</sup> Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada</p>
<p><sup>4</sup> Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), Mombasa, Kenya</p>
<p><sup>5</sup> Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Science, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria</p>
<p><sup>6 </sup>MARBEC (University of Montpellier, CNRS, Ifremer, IRD), Sète, France</p>
<p><sup>7</sup> Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France</p>
<p><sup>8</sup> Instituto Público de Investigación de Acuicultura y Pesca (IPIAP), Universidad del Pacifico (UPAC), Guayaquil, Ecuador</p>
<p><sup>9</sup> Grupo de Investigación en Sistemas Socioecológicos para el Bienestar Humano (GISSBH), Programa de Biología, Universidad del Magdalena, Colombia</p>
<p><sup>10</sup> Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Economiques pour le Développement (CERED), Université d’Antananarivo, Madagascar</p>
<p><sup>11</sup> Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINVESTAV), IPN, Unidad Mérida, Mexico</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Method</strong></p>
<p>Case studies were selected in seven countries by national SSF experts, based on specific criteria and research priorities. Case studies were not selected to represent the full diversity of SSF globally or even nationally. Instead, they were chosen to capture a range of fisheries that could showcase different contributions to SDGs. SSFs were defined based on various characteristics, such as resources harvested, gear used, and location of the fishery.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Geographical Coverage</strong></p>
<p>61 small-scale fisheries located in seven countries are documented in the data:</p>
<ul>
<li>Colombia (4 case studies) – Caribe: La Guajira, San Andrés y Providencia; Pacifico: Chocó, Cauca, Valle del Cauca, Nariño.</li>
<li>Ecuador (3) – Region: Esmeraldas, Manabi, Guayas, El Oro.</li>
<li>France (2) – Region: Bretagne, Occitanie.</li>
<li>Kenya (24) – County: Kilifi, Kwale, Lamu, Mombasa, Tana River.</li>
<li>Madagascar (20) – Region: Analanjirofo, Anosy, Atsimo Andrefana, Boeny, Diana, Menabe, Vatovavy Fitovinany.</li>
<li>Mexico (2) – State: Baja California Sur, Campeche, Yucatan.</li>
<li>Nigeria (6) – State: Bayelsa, Cross River, Lagos, Ondo, Ogun.</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Data Collection</strong></p>
<p>Data collection took place from November 30, 2022, to July 3, 2023, spanning approximately seven months. The data presented serve as a snapshot of the conditions within a specific small-scale fishery during the assessment period. To consider the evolution of trends such as exports, economic growth, and income, we considered any relevant variables over the past decade.</p>
<p>Data collection approaches varied depending on the context, and data collectors received training to ensure survey consistency. We used primary data sources such as interviews, observations, and measurements whenever possible. In cases where resources were limited, we preferred secondary sources such as existing datasets and literature. Our methods were standardized, but data collectors could adjust them based on their resources. We primarily used direct observation, focus groups, and interviews to collect data. Scoring in interviews and focus groups was done directly or through group analysis by interviewers. Disagreements were resolved through additional interviews or group discussions, with secondary data used if needed.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Ethics</strong></p>
<p>Participants had the option to join of their own accord, were fully briefed on the research goals, and were given the opportunity to review interview guidelines before proceeding. Depending on the circumstances, interviews could last 45 minutes to 4.5 hours. Participants were guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity in the handling and reporting of their data.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Suggested citation</strong></p>
<p>Léopold, M., Bitoun, R.E., Chuenpagdee, R., Fondo, E.N., Akintola, S.L., Bach, P., Frangoudes, K., Gaibor, N., Gutierrez-Cala, L., Massey, Y., Randrianandrasana, R., Razanakoto, T., Saavedra-Díaz, L.M., Salas, S., Devillers, R. (2023). World_ IRD_ Small_Scale_Fishery_Data_2023 [Data set]. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8321911</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Data Files</strong></p>
<p>The dataset includes the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>The raw dataset (.xls format).</li>
<li>A data dictionary describing and defining each dataset column (.xls format).</li>
</ul>
Analyzing the effect of the modifiable areal unit problem in remote sensing : short note
Full text link
Use of an airborne imaging spectrometer as a transfer standard for atmospheric correction of SPOT HRG data : short note
Full text link
Scale Is Introduced in Spatial Datasets by Observation Processes
No full textAn ontological investigation of data quality reveals that the quality of the data must be the result of the observation processes and the imperfections of these. Real observation processes are always imperfect. The imperfections are caused by (1) random perturbations, and (2) the physical size of the sensor. Random effects are well-known and typically included in data quality descriptions. The effects of the physical size of the sensor limit the detail observable and introduce a scale to the observations. The traditional description of maps by scale took such scale effects into account, and must be carried forward to the data quality description of modern digital geographic data. If a sensor system is well-balanced, the random perturbations, size of the sensor and optical blur (if present) are of the same order of magnitude and a summary of data quality as a `scale´ of a digital data set is therefore theoretically justifiable
- …
