Multidimensional human wellbeing in periodic octopus closures

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3395112/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Multidimensional human wellbeing in periodic octopus closures

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3395112/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

This paper investigates multidimensional human wellbeing in periodic octopus closures, a common type of marine protected area (MPA) in the western Indian ocean. We trace the perceived flow of benefits, costs and trade-offs from closures at three sites in Zanzibar. We specifically explore how different types of fishers and traders perceive the impacts of closures on wellbeing from a personal, livelihood group and village or community level, as well as ecosystem effects. Our interpretive methods which prioritized participants' emic descriptions and understandings of closure impacts. We iteratively, qualitatively coded data using a three-dimensional (material, relational and subjective) social wellbeing approach. Despite different conditions and histories at the three sites, participants identified similar wellbeing attributes as affected by the closure. Themes included social conflict, non-compliance, income, education, food/nutrition, perceptions of inequity and communal benefits reflecting recent literature on MPAs and human wellbeing Gender was a strong dimension that emphasized procedural and distributional inequity between different types of livelihood groups e.g. small-scale traderwomen and male skindivers. Material wellbeing losses due to poor market environments highlighted how better alignment is needed between periodic closure activities and resulting trade and market dynamics. Opening events thoroughly impacted wellbeing across all dimensions, suggesting that these moments are critical for creating positive perceptions or losing support for closures.

Sociology

Anthropology

Gender Studies

Community Based Natural Resource Management

Small-scale fisheries

Gender

Marine conservation

inequity

interpretive research

Protected areas are continuously growing in scale and number across the world as Governments, private citizens, communities and corporations try to meet global targets (e.g. Sustainable Development Goals, Convention on Biological Diversity) (Gill et al. 2019). Consequently, more and more people are and will be affected by their impacts (ibid). Community-based (CB) protected areas are a particular type of conservation intervention that have also been significantly spreading (ibid). This type of approach to planning and managing protected areas emerged around the 80s as a reaction to discontent with top-down implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs) which excluded resource-users from decision-making (Mahajan and Daw 2016; Kockel et al. 2020). CB approaches to marine natural resource management are argued to protect vulnerable ecosystems while supporting communities that depend on them for their livelihoods (ibid). CB protected areas have a long history in traditional forms of marine spatial management in cultures relying on marine resources, though underpinned by very different worldviews and including notions of rights and laws (Beyerl et al. 2016; Ban and Frid 2018). Modern forms of MPAs, on the other hand, were driven by conservation goals and the need to protect declining ecosystems, not innately for the intertwined needs or benefits of associated societies. So although a popular conservation strategy, their impacts on human welfare have, in the past, been overlooked or misunderstood (Mascia et al. 2017; Rasheed 2020). This is slowly changing, studies on the human dimensions of MPA impacts (social, economic, and institutional), as well as marine conservation interventions more generally, are now seen as critical to the ‘success’ of MPAs, in combination with the biophysical and ecological aspects (Charles and Wilson 2009; Bennett et al. 2017; Gill et al. 2019; Ban et al. 2019).

Although human and social dimensions are increasingly addressed from a range of epistemologies (e.g. environmental social science, conservation social science), natural sciences and bioeconomic models are still the prevailing scientific resource for marine conservation and resource management (Barreto et al. 2020). As such, the spotlight largely remains on ecological outcomes and benefits for biological recovery (ibid). There has been a big effort to develop frameworks and protocols for monitoring and assessing the social impacts of conservation as well as many reviews, case studies and meta-analyses (McKinnon et al. 2016; Breslow et al. 2016; Franks and Small 2018; BIOPAMA 2018; Gill et al. 2019). Yet the diversity of social impacts on coastal communities that marine conservation interventions can have remains an evidence gap (Fox et al. 2011; Gill et al. 2019; Mizrahi et al. 2019). The debates around how interventions are good or bad for the environment and/or society, as well as the benefits, costs or tradeoffs between the two realms have typically presented quite simplified narratives (see the following for more complex considerations- Hirsch et al. 2010; Mahajan and Daw 2016; Law et al. 2018; Gill et al. 2019). The complexities of conservation initiative impacts on human wellbeing, particularly the (in)equities that can be created or exacerbated, have received less attention (ibid). The indicators used to assess the social consequences of MPAs are rarely selected in collaboration with those impacted, and may miss the diversity of impacts and the social dynamics that affect and are affected by MPAs (Brueckner-Irwin et al. 2019). Additionally, conceptualizations impacted “communities” as coherent entities homogenise (with only fishers typically in focus) obscures social complexity e.g. resource users using different gears, trading actors, gendered dimensions, relationships and connections (Fabinyi et al. 2014; Bixler and Shmelev 2015; Rasheed 2020). This lack of evidence on the heterogeneity of marine conservation impacts amongst various social groups, scales and dimensions, can impede equitable policy and practice causing negative impacts e.g. unstable income, and increased vulnerability to shocks e.g. climate change (Bennett et al. 2017; Dawson et al. 2018; Gill et al. 2019).

One way CB conservation and MPA research is responding to the gaps on impacts and outcomes, while recognizing equity and justice (Breslow et al. 2016; Law et al. 2018; Gill et al. 2019; Crosman et al. 2022), is through the idea of human wellbeing. Assessing effects on wellbeing can help capture diversity and equity impacts on people through the multiple domains of wellbeing I.e. economic, cultural, health (O’Brien and Leichenko 2000; Gill et al. 2019). Since its entry to the conservation and development discourse in the last decade, the concept of human wellbeing has evolved greatly becoming a popular approach to providing a more meaningful and holistic measure of social progress where previously economic measures prevailed (Chaigneau et al. 2022). To address the previously mentioned gaps on conservation impacts this paper builds on previous work that documents and theorizes human wellbeing in MPAs, specifically in small-scale or artisanal fishery systems (e.g. Abunge et al. 2013; Ban et al. 2019; Brueckner-Irwin et al. 2019).

We provide a qualitative empirical case study of periodic octopus closures in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO). This small-scale fishery-closure system involves setting aside part of a fishing ground for octopus (a high-value and commonly landed species in the WIO), or all types of fishing, for approximately 3 months. We analyse interpretive fieldwork in Zanzibar to reveal how different groups of people perceive the effect of the closure implementation on different aspects of wellbeing, including (in)equity and tradeoffs. We look at the closure system largely from a social dynamics perspective, conceptualising the ecosystem through the eyes of those using it on a daily basis. The paper presents the views of various types of fishers and traders. We answer the following research questions;

1. How do participants perceive closures’ effects on multidimensional wellbeing?

2. What kind of nuances or patterns do we find across multiple social groups with different experiences of closures & conservation?

3. What kind of inequities/tradeoffs are experienced as a result of the closure (by whom)?

Finally, we reflect on the contributions of our approach to exploring wellbeing for understanding the social dynamics of CB conservation interventions.

In this article we draw on the social wellbeing approach (Gough and McGregor 2007) which integrates psychology, development studies and economics (Johnson et al. 2018). Social wellbeing doesn’t represent a single method or theory, rather an approach that highlights the relationality between and amongst people, ideas and nature (Acott et al. 2018). With this approach one can adopt diverse perspectives of wellbeing in different contexts and better unpack the plural values of Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF) (Acott et al. 2018; Johnson et al. 2018). Wellbeing should be understood as ‘multi-dimensional’ and so not adequately captured by a single measure e.g., ‘happiness’. This allows for a better account of the multiplicity of values, though with often conflicting perspectives of what is or should be valued (Johnson et al., 2018). Social wellbeing approaches often elaborate three dimensions of wellbeing; ‘material’, ‘subjective’ and ‘relational’ (Weeratunge et al. 2014). We adopt this three-dimensional lens while recognising that they are not clear categories but are interacting and co-constitutive (Gough and McGregor, 2007). Table 1 describes the three dimensions as described by (Gough and McGregor 2007; White 2008; Weeratunge et al. 2014; Coulthard and McGregor 2015).

Table 1

The three human wellbeing dimensions explained.

Sources from: (Gough and McGregor, 2007; White, 2008; Weeratunge et al., 2014; Coulthard and McGregor, 2015):
Dimensions	Description
The material	“What people have or do not have”, this refers to tangible resources, such as food, shelter, bodies, and the physical environment. In practice it has often referred to economic assets and income but includes all aspects of practical welfare and standards of living like health or livelihood concerns.
The subjective	“What people think or feel about what they have and can do”, concerns cultural values, ideologies and beliefs. This includes what people value and hold to be good, the desires they identify and how they feel about their lives. Individual or shared hopes and fears expressed as satisfaction, dissatisfaction or trust among other things. People’s own perceptions of their situations.
The relational	“What people can or cannot do with what they have”, which deals with social interaction, the rules and practices that govern 'who gets what and why.' Relations with the state, rules & norms. It involves power and identity, the connections between people and also the making of difference between them. It is the arena of action, which brings the material and subjective to life.

Notably, understanding subjective evaluations by people about their own quality of life is likely to be, if not more, important for understanding why people behave in the ways they do (Coulthard and McGregor 2015) e.g. why they comply or not with CB conservation measures. Despite the significance of the subjective self-evaluations, wellbeing discourse has been dominated rather by positivist epistemologies with a focus on economic objective measures of people’s/individuals ‘wellbeing’ (Coulthard and McGregor 2015; White 2015). A counterbalance to this interpretation of human wellbeing has recently emerged which includes the social wellbeing approach. Although largely drawing on social wellbeing and the three-dimensions, we have been influenced by the idea of relational wellbeing as put forth by White (2015)- another counter to the positivist/individual focus. Relational wellbeing makes use of interpretivism from the social sciences, whereby attention is given to research participants as subjects (White, 2015). The aim is to present and discern their understandings of their worlds and views as near to their own terms as possible (ibid). We directly follow this paradigm through the nature of the qualitative methodological approach. Figure 1 represents wellbeing in this paper according to the chosen theory and participants' articulation of the closure impacts. Participants described wellbeing across dimensions in three ways, from a collective societal perspective, personally and from the perspective of the ecosystem and the intrinsic benefits or costs to it. All data used in this paper is technically “subjective” as research participants themselves defined and described their material situations as mediated and constituted by a variety of relationships. We refer to material, relational and subjective wellbeing as MWB, RWB and SWB through the paper.

The conceptualisation of wellbeing in this research allowed us to pay attention to how the benefits for some groups came at the perceived expense of other people’s or group’s wellbeing. In this way we, as led by how participants articulated ideas of conservation impacts on their own terms, were able to explore inequity in the process and outcomes. Inequity is a normative term used to describe fairness and justice in the distribution of privilege across society (Hamann et al. 2018). At the individual level it represents how one feels about what is just or desirable as a process/outcome and is akin to subjective inequality i.e. a person’s perceptions of existing inequalities and beliefs about fairness (ibid). Inequality represents the unequal distribution of a scarce resource, benefit, or cost, and is not necessarily normative (ibid). Inequality however leaves out rights-based and needs-based claims which are embedded in different contexts, thus meaning equal allocation can lead to inequitable effects (ibid; For an in-depth discussion of social inequity within the marine realm see Crosman et al., 2022). Through people’s descriptions of inequity, we identified tradeoffs between groups, defined as the “occurrence of both positive (gains) and negative (losses) outcomes across social groups, scales, or wellbeing domains attributed to an intervention” (Gill et al., 2019).

Context

Zanzibar is an archipelago with a number of islands, the two biggest being Unguja to the South and Pemba to the North (see Fig. 2 for map). These Islands are a semi- autonomous state of Tanzania- located 40–60 km off its coastline and within the WIO. The marine environment is an important part of Zanzibar’s economy, attracting and supporting a tourist industry which contributed to 47% of total GDP in 2014 (NDF 2014). Zanzibaris depend heavily on marine resources for income and nutrition, about 25% of the population are employed in fisheries and related services i.e. marketing, while 98% of the animal protein in low-income Zanzibaris’ diet is seafood (Jiddawi et al. 2009; Everett et al. 2014; IUCN 2020).

Marine resources are exploited by highly artisanal SSF with traps, seine nets, handlines and spears being the most dominant gears (Khatib and Jiddawi 2010). The coastal environment here is dominated by coral reefs, seagrass beds, sandy beaches and mangrove ecosystems. Octopus landings represent part of the top five groups of marine species landed alongside mixed reef fish (e.g. Siganidae, Lethrinidae), small pelagic species (e.g. Engraulidae), large pelagics like tuna or kingfish (e.g. Scomberidae) and demersal species like sharks, rays and shrimps (e.g. Carcharhinidae, Penneidae). Octopus is both consumed locally and internationally exported, Zanzibar production has doubled since the 90s (Sauer et al. 2021; Berrío-Martínez 2022).

Both women and men target octopus, usually during low tides, using low-tech tools such as wooden or metal sticks, hooks and spears. Women typically footfish or “glean” while men can also snorkel/freedive along the reef edges (Guard and Mgaya 2002; Sauer et al. 2021; Berrío-Martínez 2022). This reflects the broader WIO region, where in many places women access octopus only in the intertidal zone due to socially constructed rules, perceptions, and duties embedded in the various local cultures (Wosu 2017). They often don’t learn to swim or have access to fishing boats because of these gender expectations, thus larger octopus in deeper waters remain inaccessible (ibid).

Octopus is considered a priority species in Zanzibar with a dedicated management plan put in place in 2012. Periodic octopus closures were introduced in 2015 as a co-management tool by NGO’s in collaboration with an Indian Ocean Commission programme Smartfish (Slade et al. 2019). Octopus closures however were also used traditionally in the past, associated with religious festivities such as Ramadhan or Maulid (Jack-Kadioglu 2017; Slade et al. 2019). For many coral reef fisheries in the WIO area, octopus dominate the SSF effort (Rocliffe and Harris 2015). Octopus is a high value resource, hunting it requires little financial investment for fishing equipment or other costs, and once caught it can be rapidly transformed to financial profit (Westerman and Benbow 2013; Oliver et al. 2015). In the past decade, the demand for WIO octopus has grown from global markets in the form of export and tourism (Porter et al. 2008; Guard 2009; Westerman and Benbow 2013; Rocliffe and Harris 2015). CB Octopus closures have spread across the wider WIO (including Rodrigues, Mauritius, Mozambique, Kenya and Tanzania) since introduced to Madagascar by Blue ventures in 2004, with octopus becoming a model species for this grass roots fisheries management revolution. Octopus grow and reproduce quickly thus can rapidly boost productivity as a result of short-term closures (Guard 2009). Closure implementation and the management activities involved can have a positive effect for self-organized common resource management and cooperation e.g. strong leadership, building social capital and trust (Oliver 2015). On the flip side, the increased fishing effort during opening events (when the area is opened after three months) has been seen to diminish some of the positive wellbeing impacts (increased octopus landings, income) over time through overfishing and reef degradation (Humber et al. 2006; Guard 2009; Benbow et al. 2014; Berrío-Martínez 2022; Silas et al. 2022). At early closure stages in Madagascar women were found to be left out of closure conception and management decisions (Benbow et al. 2014). Questions have thus been raised over the long-term sustainability of such closures both for human wellbeing, income generation and the reef environment (Westerman and Benbow, 2013). A better systemic understanding that accounts for local dynamics and processes is needed to understand how this model can enhance local livelihoods and sustainable resource use (Berrío-Martínez 2022).

Conceptions of wellbeing are highly dependent on the methods and disciplines of those studying it. Research for this paper aligned with an interpretive paradigm in that the process was largely inductive and centred around participant’s own experiences of the closure process. Interpretivism has pre-positivist roots in early 19th century anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, and semiotics (Bhattacherjee 2012). It has experienced a resurgence since the 1970’s in response to the perceived limited new insights from positivist techniques (ibid). Generally the paradigm can be conceptualised as having a subjectivist epistemology where knowledge is “always filtered through the lenses of language, gender, social class, race, and ethnicity” (Denzin and Lincoln 2005)and relativist ontology where reality is not distinguishable from the subjective experience (Denzin and Lincoln 2005; Levers 2013). This for us meant grounding research in primary stakeholder’s subjective experiences, feelings and perceptions of the intervention. This ‘research attitude’ differs from most MPA research despite the importance of perceptions and feelings as motivators and explanations of human behaviour (Keller et al. 2012; Beyerl et al. 2016; Ajzen et al. 2018) and thus acceptability of conservation and environmental governance (Bennett 2016). It is positive perceptions, not only objective scientific evidence, that ultimately gains local conservation support thus facilitating the long-term advancement of environmental management (ibid). This attention shaped our data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Data collection & analysis

Data collection took place over a three-month period in 2019 (October to December) at three sites in Unguja and Pemba and also supported a recently submitted paper based on (non)-compliance within the same research project “OctoPINTS” (Octopints.wordpress.com)(Drury O’Neill et al. In Review). The lead author, accompanied by two enumerators, both from Pemba (one working for the collaborating NGO implementing the closures and one working as a tourist guide) carried out fieldwork. Three sites were chosen to capture multiple participant groups and their different temporal experiences of closures (see Table 2 for description of differences between sites). Three data collection methods were used with octopus closure stakeholders (see Fig. 3 for an overview of participant group types); skindivers, footfisherwomen, traderwomen, footfishermen and tradermen were met separately on three different occasions over the course of a week.

Table 2

An overview of the three selected sites, key differences between sites in terms of their experiences of closures, general conservation projects and some details on their fishery and market systems. SFC- Shehia Fishery Committee.
Sites	1 Newish	2 Ongoing	3 Stopped
Location	Unguja	Pemba	Pemba
Experience of traditional closures	Yes	No	No
Experience of conservation projects	Yes, since the 80s the site was involved in western-lead conservation areas, world bank management projects, Dolphin-based tourism activities	Yes, experience of world bank funded conservation through a large marine conservation area initiative established in 2005	Yes, also within the wider marine conservation area from 2005 but also locally lead conservation activities including periodic coastal closures. The NGO had capacity building projects here prior to the closures.
First started with octopus closures	At the end of 2017 the SFC initiated and led a closure themselves, officially in March 2018 with the NGO	In 2017, approached by the NGO to do so due to the substantial octopus fishing grounds adjacent	The first site to start with the NGO supported closures in Zanzibar in 2015. Government program selected the site due to major octopus fishery and asked NGO to implement.
Octopus fishery	Largely done by male skindivers (free divers) from shore but also from boats. At spring tides by women from shore.	Similar to Site 1	Unique to this area was the presence of SCUBA (Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus) by younger men
Octopus market	Octopus supported the tourist industry of Unguja, going to local hotels and restaurants and being transported to Stone Town for further distribution. Octopus could also go to mainland for sales.	Agents of Mombasa seafood export companies e.g. Seaharvest, came to buy octopus at openings here which supplied European export. Octopus from this site also supplied the Unguja tourist market making use of the regular ferry connection.	Octopus was gathered here (in freezers) for the agents of the same Kenyan seafood export companies who came at openings and spring tides- when there was sufficient octopus landings
Continuing closures	Yes	Yes	No, stopped due to a major poaching event and the continued conflict between people in the two villages 2017

On the first day(s) in each site we carried out story circles (Hebert et al. 2020), which involved each participant in the group (on average 5) sharing their story of octopus closures for approximately 5 minutes (if they wanted to) (see appendix 1 for instructions used in all methods). The rest of the participants actively listened until it was their turn. In the next meeting photo elicitation tasks were carried out (Bignante 2010). 90 + images sourced from the NGO, fellow researchers, online and from the first author were printed out and used. They depicted various topics to do with the closure and octopus fishery including seafood markets, hotels, fishing vessels, fishing gears, (un)healthy marine ecosystem, tourism, closure opening events, stakeholder meetings, weighing scales, record keeping books and various fishing activities. At the third and final meeting focus group discussions took place based on (non)-compliance, closure impacts and affects, decision-making and participation. We refer to the methods in the results as stories, photos and discussions.

All methods were carried out in Kiswahili and subsequently translated to English for transcription. Informed consent was sought before each interaction with participants as per the Principles and procedures for Research Ethics at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University. All data was anonymised and then imported into MaxQDA for qualitative coding (VERBI software 2019). Data for this paper was iteratively coded using the three-dimensional wellbeing framework. This allowed for the emergence of various aspects/ideas related to the affects, impacts or outcomes of the closure e.g. descriptions of ecological and collective wellbeing as well as inequities. Weights were assigned to the different WB attributes according to the frequency different participant groups talked about them- either negatively or positively. Qualitative coding naturally led to frequency data, though not statistically analysable, it gave us more precision in analysing wellbeing and provided some ‘direction’ to the results.

Perceptions of Multidimensional wellbeing

Table 3

Description of each wellbeing attribute mentioned in Fig. 4 by dimension
Wellbeing Dimension	Wellbeing attribute	Description
Material	Harvest/fishery resources (+)	Increased sizes and abundance of octopus and/or other marine species due to closure. Recognised in relation to human benefit and use of the landed products.
	Ecological health (+)	Increased octopus and marine species abundance, reproductivity, coral reef restoration/protection and overall ecosystem health, unlinked to human needs. Closure prevents destructive/illegal practices i.e. trampling, drag nets, small mesh nets, nails.
	Income (+/-)	Closure affects personal and village incomes from octopus.
	Prices (+/-)	Prices per KG at opening are good and provide benefits. Prices are low and/or unfair.
	Octopus fishery access (+/-)	Increased access or novel access provided to the octopus fishery at openings for women, children/school-goers, non-fishers and the general public. Access to the octopus fishery reduced/impacted by closure.
	Octopus market access (+/-)	Increased/novel access to the market/value chain for selling and trading octopus. Decreased access to the octopus market due to lack of or fewer products.
	Educational needs (+)	Money from octopus sales went to uniforms, school fees and support for school attendance.
	Village economic development (+)	Village economic development generally, or in terms of specific projects (water pumps, mosques, wells, nurseries, canals, was widely perceived to have increased)
	Food/nutritional access (+)	Food and nutritional access increased as a result of the octopus itself (or other spp. now more available) or money from octopus sales going to buy other food stuffs, for children and family. Particular availability for children and poorer households.
	Basic needs (+)	Basic needs are in the short-term easier to meet as a result of ladings/abundance.
Relational	Learning & Knowledge (+/-)	The closure system, including environmental and educational awareness/activities, contributes to people’s knowledge of the marine ecosystem, octopus as a species or marine governance. This learning and awareness positively impacts their wellbeing. Their existing knowledge and views were de-valued or ignored, they are lacking knowledge on the closure and the marine environment, they need knowledge. People’s lack of knowledge and learning on the closure and marine environment leads to distrust/disagreement/apprehension.
	Festivities/celebrational (+)	The opening day creates festivities and celebration amongst many people, both locals and outsiders and visitors. Openings appear like ceremonies where many can enjoy good food and interact together.
	Enforcement (-)	Lack of enforcement in closure governance negatively impacts wellbeing, relations to the governing authorities are undermined, unenforced poaching/illegalities affected people’s abilities to benefits and encouraged/promoted more illegalities.
	Conflict/disagreement (-)	Agreements to do with the closure and processes are broken/not followed (both in terms of intra- and inter community). There is lack of cooperation over closure activities. People disagree and argue over implementing the closure. Fishers of different types argue amongst each other over fishing activities at openings, those who are against the closure create conflicts.
	Relations to/with God (+/-)	God provides/helps to provide large/plentiful octopus, God assists people in landing octopus, it’s in God’s plans who and how people will benefit from opening. God’s ownership of the coast is used by poachers to delegitimize the closure rules/agreement, God’s ownership of natural resources means all/anyone can use them.
	Cooperative relations (+)	Closure rules and processes are agreed upon, different types of people cooperate (SFC, intra community, intervillage/community) to carry-out closure procedures e.g., patrolling, checking the octopus biomass. The village/area was mobilized together to plan for and enact the closure. There was greater intercommunity cooperation at openings as well as in general over planning and sharing opened grounds.
	Organisational/procedural (+)	Procedures were provided to the area by the closure e.g. sales rules. Trading and fishing become more structured and organized. Activities are less “random” and there is greater opportunity to arrange/plan for the village environment.
	Poaching conflicts (-)	The most common type of conflict was with people who entered the closed area, neighbours, locals, visitors, migrants. This included conflicts with patrolling guards and within the implementing community in general.
	Decision-making & collaboration (+/-)	The closure provided greater opportunity to discuss/participate/agree rules/rule-making. There was more opportunity to contribute views about the process and greater consultation with community (levy-use, closure locations). More representation from all groups/genders was recognized in the decision-making space. There was increased collaborative inter-community/shehia decision-making. Some saw better transparency in leaders decisions/communication of process. Others recognised the chance to vote. There was unequal gender participation at meetings and fishers were not properly represented/consulted. Transparency in use of levy by SFC, enforcement and punishment was not apparent. Fishers’ views not considered, it was a forced/top-down process.
Subjective	Conflict (-)	Expressed as unhappiness or dissatisfaction with the closure.
	Personal & collective benefits (+)	The various types of benefits (mainly material) for individuals and the villages/communities expressed in turns of happiness/satisfaction/joy
	Lack of benefits/disappointment with benefits (-)	People that were upset/angry/disappointed with the benefits (mainly related to money) from the closure
	Individual/occupational identity & pride (+)	Increased measure of self-identity was felt, the new trading tools & procedures the closure provided supported trading/fishing occupations. People’s ways of fishing or trading were reflected and recognised by closure procedures, pride in their activities expressed.
Inequity	Perceptions of inequity (+/-)	Questions of equity “fairness” were used to frame wellbeing impacts (largely material outcomes), between multiple groups or types of people. Perceptions of inequity emerged through non-compliance, in gender relations, in market and fishing practices (particularly at openings) and through relations with the leadership.

Figure 4 and Table 3 present the different wellbeing attributes that emerged. Multiple overlaps exist between the interacting dimensions, such as the subjective plus relational impacts of conflicts like poaching or the satisfaction and happiness around various benefit types which are elaborated in MWB. Materially, all groups at all sites recognised benefits in terms of harvests at the openings. By social group, fisherwomen cited the greatest material benefits, more easily meeting their basic needs. Tradermen experienced various market issues at material costs to them (e.g. low prices, illegal buying at opening). MWB costs to traderwomen were also linked to the market issues while for skindivers, the main octopus fishers, lost access to their fishing grounds. Relationally, all groups presented losses to a certain extent due to the conflicts, largely over non-compliance. Subjectively, the female groups were the most satisfied, and one could say supportive, despite various costs to other WB dimensions. Tradermen’s satisfaction was most evident around octopus sizes and abundances. Skindivers and footfishermen were dissatisfied/upset by poaching and the fact that others (e.g. migrants, neighbours, guests) benefited from their closure.

The following subsections disaggregate the participant group types and how the closures impacted each of the various material, relational or subjective attributes. Site differences are additionally highlighted when major differences were evident. Inequity was a strong feature of perceptions and came up repeatedly, thus we devote a section of the results to discuss it explicitly.

Material wellbeing

The MWB aspects emphasised who respondents felt were, and were not, directly benefiting e.g. through access to the fishery, larger octopus, and what participants were doing with their octopus catch or product. MWB effects also signalled how certain groups were not experiencing benefits, such as through income, price or access issues. Figure 4 shows many material benefits, particularly in terms of increased harvest and fishery resources (larger and/more abundant octopus and other species) linked to widely recognised increased ecosystem health. Participants perceived the increased availability of other species for fishing on the reefs (squid, finfish, prawns, eel, sea cucumber, jacks, conch, rabbitfish) and many highlighted, particularly the skindivers and footfishermen, that octopus themselves benefited as they now had more chances to reproduce and experienced less disturbances, which also rang true for other species such as corals (now able to recover/grow back), eels and squid. “Let me say that there are corals here, in the past we didn't have these but after the coming of closure we thank God that the corals are healthier” (footfishermen ongoing-site photos). “[...] the advantages of closing it shows that the corals are big, the fish lives well, playing well”(traderwomen ongoing-site photos). Increased ecosystem health was also described (by all five groups) through the prevention of overharvesting and destructive/illegal practices. Ecological benefits were most recognised by the ongoing site.

In terms of accessing the increased marine species abundance, fisherwomen, “women” in general, children and school-goers (footfishing/gleaning) experienced better octopus fishery access as a result of opening days. “The other picture is a woman who is fishing octopus, she is getting octopus in an easily accessible place, she doesn't have to find them far away in a deep water because they are all over the fishing ground. This means that the Closure is important” (footfisherman newish-site photos). For most participant groups, besides fisherwomen, access to the fishery was mixed as a result of the closure. Other groups felt negative effects on their usual fishing practises during the closure with a negative impact due to high dependence on the coastline. However, opening events generally provided unique opportunities for more people to fish octopus, including non-fishing actors.

Improvements to income (both collective & individual) from octopus sales were more widespread than costs though some participants in all groups (bar fisherwomen) did feel that there were some specific costs. For instance, traderwomen could experience lower octopus supply during the closed season while during peak supply at openings they were not always able to sell all products thus suffering losses due to lack of freezers/storage options or losing profits due to fees for fridge storage. Low and/or unstable prices had more negative impacts across groups, especially for fisherwomen and tradermen and in terms of sites- for the ongoing site. Fisherwomen felt prices were often too low to obtain profit and tradermen found unstable prices made it difficult to fulfil orders from their buyers for export. In general, larger-scale actors in the octopus value chain, the skindivers and tradermen, felt they lost market access due to price and supply instability, finding it hard to meet export demands. Traderwomen sometimes felt the three month wait restricted their market access as there was less octopus available, additionally their lack of available cash to provide fishers as supply peaked at openings restricted their chances to buy. On the other hand, access to the value chain increased for village inhabitants at a general level, including for economically poorer households who were now able to afford octopus (a typically high-value product) at openings. ”(at openings)We the small-scale traders will go and buy and we will buy the big ones because they will be many, otherwise the big people (large-scale male traders) will go and buy, then we will be humiliated. But (with closures) even us small-scale traders benefit” (traderwomen stopped-site discussions). In terms of the collective income impacts, village economic development generally, or in terms of specific projects.

Increased food and nutritional access were observed by female groups as well as some tradermen, from either the octopus, other available spp. and/or money from octopus sales for buying food for children and family. These three groups specifically mentioned that children now had better access to octopus as food from opening events. Traderwomen recognized they were able to provide more and cheaper processed octopus, often fried cut pieces. In addition to nutrition, income supported traderwomen and some fisherwomen to meet daily needs such as bread. Women used octopus profits to buy educational items and support their children at school e.g. uniforms, school fees. “...when we open we get benefits, for me the benefits I was getting was that I got food for my children, I get soap, I get rice and store inside, I take the children to school, I buy uniforms, but now I don’t have because the income is low” (fisherwomen stopped-site stories).

Relational wellbeing

Figure 4, shows that all groups cited conflicts between/amongst the villages and groups as well as conflicts over poaching as strongly negatively impacting RWB. Poaching and conflict impacts were most emphasised in the stopped site where they had contributed to the collapse of the closure system. Fisherwomen were the most affected by conflicts over poaching, describing in detail the various adverse effects it had on their own fishing activities, chances to benefit and relations with those stealing. They were “disturbed” by the thieves who selfishly came to steal and benefit and sometimes even violently threatened them. The frequency of poaching created misunderstandings in closure management, connected to the lack of proper enforcement which all groups perceived to various extents -especially at the stopped site (see Fig. 4). Unenforced poaching as well as illegal buying and fishing practises at opening, which were also commonly mentioned across groups, in effect promoted further non-compliance and conflicts amongst a diverse array of groups e.g. fishers, village, neighbours/non-locals. Social conflicts more specifically were described across all groups and were often linked to the issues of following buying and selling procedures at openings, the lack of consensus between/amongst different villages, as well as between locals, on the closure rules and processes. “We have many coasts, when you close here, you will get other place, it is the richest country but we make it poor because we don’t have agreements” (fisherwomen stopped-site discussions). Disagreements were also experienced at the implementation phase as most groups described the lack of belief or awareness, they or fellow comrades had, of potential social and ecological benefits from the closure which created unwillingness or misunderstandings. This lack of knowledge and learning was most recognised by traderwomen who felt often people had their own understandings of what the closure could mean and were in need of better education around the process. All other groups recognised this negative impact for RWB, however in combination with the various benefits conservation education and knowledge-sharing had for those who received it, be it themselves or their collectivities. Most felt conservation information sharing led to better closure support and thus compliance and/or simply appreciated or felt they benefited from the conservation information (and even opening catch data) from the SFC and NGO.

All groups recognised a largely positive effect of the closure process on decision-making spaces and collaboration amongst groups/leaders/villages in decision-making suggesting some success in capacity building of decision-making and governance capabilities. Participants from all groups described better opportunities for discussing, participating in and agreeing fishery rules, increased collaborative problem solving, improved representation of groups and genders at meetings, more SFC consultation with the community about decisions (e.g. pricing, levy-use, closure locations), the chance for elections and voting and increased conservation management discussions around the community e.g. at home or in informal meetings. “The decision they (SFC) made is good, we attend the meetings, we are allowed to contribute, and our views are considered”(tradermen newish-site discussions). The negative aspects that were mentioned included fisherwomen’s need for better transparency in enforcement and punishment as well as for women to be seen as genuine and legitimate participants at closure meetings (described further in the inequity section). “Women are not heard, we are seen as the attendees of the meetings” (fisherwomen stopped-site photos). Skindivers also felt it wasn’t always clear if rule breakers actually paid their fines and that sometimes closure decision-making was too top-down, and Government-backed.

All groups benefited from the different types of cooperation enacted from closure processes, which was evidenced by descriptions of increased interactions and meetings at multiple levels i.e. between villagers with the SFC, the NGO and the Fisheries Department as well as at both the intra- and inter-community level through opening events and sharing of opened-fishing groups. “There is cooperation, when we close the octopus, the fishers from one village can go to fish in another village, everywhere they wish. And the guards from here go there and from there come here, so there is high cooperation” (footfishermen ongoing-site discussions).

The procedures the intervention introduced were also appreciated across groups (organizational/procedural attribute) - especially by traderwomen and footfishermen. The closure provided structures and processes to people’s fishing and trading activities; allowing fishers in particular to benefit e.g. catch and sales recordings, pricing, selling and weighing procedures. Footfishermen felt they could plan better, knowing that in approximately three months there would be an opening where they would get some money, also that the new fishing arrangements prevented fishers from overfishing and/or creating disturbances. Traderwomen echoed the latter sentiment adding general appreciation for the rules and strategies the closure provided the community.

Opening event festivities and celebrations contributed to positive social relations amongst attendees, creating happiness and opportunities to get to know people and even have guests come to visit. “Yes, when octopus is closed you will be having nothing, but on the opening you eat what you want, you eat classic rice like basmati, jasmine, you eat chipsi (chips/fries), mishkaki (kebab sticks). The day we open looks like there is a ceremony, you can visit and see” (fisherwomen newish-site discussions). This was recognised by all participant groups alongside the positive relationship with/to God within the closure harvesting process- it was through His guidance and blessings people could benefit from the octopus (only explicated in Pemba sites). Negative aspects of this religious aspect were described by fisher- and traderwomen as poachers used God’s ownership of the resources to legitimize stealing, emphasizing the open access nature of God’s blessings in the sea- “they say that “we didn’t steal it belongs to God, it is no one's property" (fisherwomen stopped-site photos).

Subjective wellbeing

SWB is represented by the values and affects people attributed to the closure process, either negatively or positively (Fig. 4, Table 3). People valued personal and collective material benefits including income, nutrition, basic needs as well as aspects of self-identity. Increased access to the benefits of the octopus fishery for the village created widespread satisfaction, amongst all groups, particularly, traderwomen, skindivers and footfishermen. In contrast conflicts and disagreement, largely centred around non-compliance, created fear, anger and dissatisfaction. “...there are people who go to fish in the area which we closed and they are chased but they don't want to stop, even the guards are now tired and afraid of them, they are injured and are beaten by those thieves. The people of (a neighbouring village) refused to conserve because of thieves” (fisherwomen ongoing-site stories). This was felt by all groups, though starkly by fisherwomen and tradermen, the latter being unhappy about those ignoring the opening day buying and selling regulations. Disappointment around the personal benefits achieved from the closure process was mainly expressed by the male groups (particularly the newish-site), and was caused by various incidents such as overcrowded openings, lack of direct income from the project (based on false expectations), poor enforcement, deficient state/Government involvement and the widespread illegalities. Though female groups recognised such issues, they appeared to be more satisfied/grateful with the resulting benefits that flowed their way e.g. incomes, nutrition-access, basic needs, benefits for children, community benefits.

Evidence of pride and links to occupational identity only came through photo elicitation tasks with female groups. The new trading tools (weighing scales, record keeping books) and procedures (e.g. selling rules at opening) that the closure provided, supported who they were. Their ways of fishing or trading were reflected and recognised by closure processes which supported a sense of pride in their livelihoods. “I remember the opening day, I always go with my fishing tools as in the photo here, I fish like here in the photo, I choose this photo because I can see myself through this, the way I used to fish on that day” (fisherwomen newish-site photos).

Inequity

Questions of equity were extensively used to frame wellbeing impacts of the closure, at multiple levels and between multiple groups or types of people. Inequity was perceived at various points of the closure process, including in non-compliance, in gender relations, in market and fishing practices (particularly at openings) and through relations with the leadership. Participants described unfairness in these dimensions, both in relation to decision-making and participation (known as procedural equity, see Bennett et al. 2020). However, most detail was given to inequalities in the resulting closure benefits (called distributional equity, Bennett et al. 2020) i.e. who could access and utilize how much of the octopus resource.

A strong sense of inequity within the conservation process was created by the illegalities/non-compliance that took place. It was recognized by all that non-compliers removed octopus products from those who actually abided by the rules. “....we got few because the thieves were stealing and finished the octopus, And when we open the thieves are the ones who get more than us, people went there and didn't come with octopus.” (fisherwomen ongoing-site stories). For all male groups the lack of proper fining, patrol resources, like boats, and corruption during patrol (e.g. allowing fishers to enter or guards taking themselves) allowed thieves rather than other groups to benefit. For skindivers this created a lack of equal rights amongst groups. They called out Government corruption in allowing destructive migrant fishers (known as Wakojani) to their conserved areas, thus taking away their and others potential profits. Skindivers, however, were referenced by all other groups bar tradermen (who often were partnered with skindivers in supplying export/commercial trade) as landing an unfair amount of octopus due to the frequency of their rule breaking. On the other hand, skindivers themselves felt they were punished and targeted unfairly. They claimed to be unfairly treated due to their superior in-water fishing abilities and local ecological knowledge.

Illegal buying practices at the openings (e.g. not paying the levy, not using the designated sales points) disadvantaged, in terms of profit, the tradermen who followed the rules, paid the levies and waited for the proper opening times to buy.

Gender relations often deepened or influenced the inequity within closure processes. Some positives included women becoming guards, and increased octopus trade reducing their dependence on their husbands. However different fishing groups were able to materially benefit (octopus landings) more or less due to their fishing skills and abilities in the water, often defined by the clear/strong gender roles in the Zanzibari context which restrict women’s opportunities to utilize vessels or freedive/swim. “If you can help us to tell the committee that during the opening there are “wakalipso" (skindivers), mostly are men, they start to fish earlier than us because of their ability to go into deep water and they start earlier before we go because we cannot fish when the water level is high, and when we go we find that they have finished everything” (fisherwomen newish-site stories). Traderwomen and footfishers perceived that skindivers could access better deeper reefs due to their fishing skills. With regards participation, although women in general showed higher attendance at decision-making meetings their quality of involvement was lower than men due to relative-education levels, people’s attitudes towards them (seen as attendees rather than contributors) and nature towards hierarchy or leadership (tendency to be submissive, often unwilling to speak out/up)- articulated by both women and men. Women were often not heard at meetings with the SFC. Additionally SFCs, the main group directly engaged with the NGO, were still largely made up of men.

At opening events inequalities most starkly emerged. certain procedures and practices were described as unfair. For example, women, children and elders had to wait for low tide to access reefs while men who could swim entered earlier, regardless of high tide or appointed times (footfishermen, tradermen, fisherwomen). “To wait until water level is low is impossible, others enter in high tide, while women cannot, this rule is still not obeyed, people are trying to prevent but they fail because men start to enter before water goes, so women suffer” (traderwomen ongoing-site discussions). Sometimes the closed area was too far away so that elderly or less physically-abled groups in the vicinity were not able to access the fishery while others could (i.e. skindivers). Openings also incited a sense of unfairness amongst locally-based fishers, namely that others who did not implement the closure could come and benefit, sometimes more so i.e. neighbouring villagers, guests.

“...during the opening, people from different places come and they may get much more than us who suffered. I may end up getting one Octopus and an outsider gets 10kg, this is not fair” (footifishermen newish-site stories). This was for many participants who felt the closed area was too small to accommodate the crowds at openings, reducing landings for locals (all groups minus traderwomen). Ultimately a lack of exclusion rules at openings strengthened inequalities. Everyone was allowed to enter at the same time regardless of their fishing capabilities which naturally led to the skindivers or more skilled male fishers outcompeting less-specialized groups’ (e.g. elders, children) for large and high-quality octopus.

In terms of markets and trade, fishermen and traderwomen felt inequity was created by the support or advantage the closure provided to larger-scale tradermen connected to the higher-value markets i.e. tourism, national and international export, rather than the smaller-scale locally based actors. Larger-scale traders could set and influence over the price (fisherwomen highlighted this), which often didn’t benefit the small-scale or locally-based actors. For example, big male traders or ‘middlemen’ benefited from the low prices at openings and the high prices at the hotels they sold to (explained by footfisherwo(men)). They also bought such large quantities of octopus at opening events they became less available for other traders and customers. “...the large-scale traders buy all the octopus and we the small-scale traders don’t get, they affect us…” (traderwomen stopped-site discussions). They could also earn a lot more than small traders as they used transport to sell outside the village to various markets. However, these larger male traders themselves felt that they were the ones subjected to the levy when customers, consumers and fishers weren’t, directly affecting their profits. They also sensed that footfishers, who now had access to the lucrative octopus fishery, benefited more (than male traders and their suppliers, the skindivers) as they didn’t heavily depend on the octopus for their livelihoods nor have big customer orders to fulfil. On a more positive note, weighing scales, which were introduced as a tool by the NGO, were noted as bringing more equal rights to both fishers and traders at sales interactions- particularly mentioned by traderwomen.

Local leadership, including the SFC, Sheha, Village council member or local Governmental member, were able to benefit more than those not in positions of power due to corrupt activities (as felt by footfishermen and skindivers). For example, patrolling SFC members could share information about the location of abundant octopus catches with others, in return for some product, or even take the catch themselves when on patrol. “They agreed that no one is allowed to go there, but the committee members themselves can fish or his friend, they are the ones who break the rules” (footfishermen newish-site discussions). Besides corruption, the earnings from the sales levy (at openings) and salary/employment opportunities were seen as benefiting the SFC in particular, distinguishing them as a group that did better than others out of closure processes.

Octopus closure wellbeing and wider MPA impacts literature

Despite contrasting site experiences with closures, most of the 20 + wellbeing attributes identified were common across sites. Although the strength of some attributes varied (Fig. 3). The themes brought out by our results echo recent reviews and case studies of MPA wellbeing impacts that consider social, ecological, political, cultural and governance aspects- including social conflict, non-compliance, income, education, food/nutrition, perceptions of inequity and communal benefits (e.g. Mascia et al. 2010; Chaigneau and Brown 2016; Mahajan and Daw 2016; Ban et al. 2019; Rasheed 2020; Barreto et al. 2020; Jacquemont et al. 2022).

The most negative effects on relational and subjective wellbeing were due to conflicts rather than lack of material gains. Furthermore, although the closure model had collapsed and been discontinued at the stopped site, the same range of benefits were still recognised as other sites, suggesting that the inability to deal with social conflicts was more of an issue than lack of material gains. In recent MPA reviews social conflict is also shown as one of the major costs to wellbeing as an intrinsic part of conservation and MPA establishment (FAO 2017; Ban et al. 2019; Barreto et al. 2020; Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2020; Jacquemont et al. 2022). Our participants described the negative emotional or material impacts of conflict on them and their villages. This aligns with a view of conflict whereby one party or groups’ interests (e.g. potential benefits) are impaired at the expense of the interests of another party (c.f. Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2020). This didn't just happen through non-compliance but for example when implementation and organization of the closure could not initially be agreed upon. The interests of those in opposition to the process impairing closure supporters (ibid). Such impairment could be seen at the core of the inequity, enforcement and decision-making issues (e.g. lack of transparency) among a range of conflict sources in our study. A similar variety of conflict sources is also brought to light by Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2020 (a review covering 5 continents and 87 MPAs). Recognition of the diversity of and nuances in conflict sources emphasizes the ingrained and complex nature of conflict (ibid). MPA processes are in critical need of better context relevant conflict resolution strategies i.e. multistep formal and informal processes for resolving disputes, which recognise the nuances of conflict (Mascia et al. 2017; Bennett et al. 2017; Ban et al. 2019; Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2020; Jacquemont et al. 2022). Despite the key role of conflict resolution in the sustainable governance of common pool resources, conflict resolution processes are often lacking (Fox et al. 2011; Mascia et al. 2017; Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2020). Conflict can be positive if proper resolution processes are in place. It can be an important part of democratic governance and procedural justice, bringing minority voices to the table, highlighting governance issues e.g. lax enforcement or inequalities and even strengthening user-rights (Gurney et al. 2014; Ban et al. 2019; Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli 2020).

Our results also support the potential for MPAs to positively contribute to food security (Mascia et al. 2010; Mahajan and Daw 2016; Mascia et al. 2017; Ban et al. 2019). Contribution to food is mostly frequently interpreted through total catch or catch per unit effort, whereas our interpretivist approach took account of the diverse mechanisms through which people used their octopus landings in supporting nutrition. This food security and reserve link is not generalizable nor robustly explored within the SSF, livelihood and MPA research arena yet (Darling 2014; FAO 2017). These periodic closures contributed to food security at opening through the cash made from selling octopus, through the octopus landings themselves as well as other species which saw increased biomass. Openings provided at least short- to medium-term nutritional benefits, including by increasing availability and accessibility of cheaper octopus to lower-income households. The food security contributions are not typically included in narratives around MPAs (Allison 2011). The relationship between MPA processes and increased stability in food security is obviously complex and messy depending on local specifics, reserve types and time periods etc. (Darling 2014; FAO 2017) however, with the periodic octopus closure, several pathways towards nutritional contributions were clearly described by participants, largely women (c.f. Kawarazuka and Béné 2010, whom look at SSF and aquaculture more generally highlighting women's role in nutrition). A next step could be quantifying or systematically mapping such pathways more concretely to better assess the importance of periodic closures to nutritional security, for who and how.

Social differentiation & aspects of equity

Our focus on the social disaggregation of different groups linked to the closure, is highlighted as a major gap in MPA studies (Mascia et al. 2010, p. 201; Fox et al. 2011; Gill et al. 2019; Mizrahi et al. 2019; Brueckner-Irwin et al. 2019; Rasheed 2020). Gender was strongly emphasized supporting calls for greater gender considerations in MPA studies (Kleiber et al. 2018; Ban et al. 2019; Barreto et al. 2020). Participants frequently referred to gendered dimensions of inequity i.e. between small-scale traderwomen vs larger-scale tradermen, women, children and elders vs specialized male octopus fishers, rule followers (including women) vs skindivers as rule breakers, villagers vs outsiders. Who loses and who benefits and how is an interaction between MPA processes and how, where and why people use (directly or indirectly) marine resources (c.f. Kleiber et al. 2018). CB management of MPAs needs to consider that inequities in access, benefits and decision-making still fall along gendered lines with potential disadvantages for certain groups(Baker-Medard 2016). For example, although CBNRM provided opportunities for more women to attend decision-making spaces (also nationally, see Wosu et al. 2020), women’s legitimate and genuine participation remains questionable (c.f. Baker-Medard 2016; Rohe et al. 2018). Described as nominal or passive participation by most, with only some instances of activity-specific participation in terms of being guards (though on patrol there were incidences of violence/threats).

Our data highlight how considerations of social equity, which takes into account justice, rights and fairness (Agarwal 2001; Di Chiro 2008; Bennett et al. 2020)- could really benefit MPA implementation yet, which still receives much less research effort ((Rasheed 2020; Bennett et al. 2020; Crosman et al. 2022). CB-closures shift historically rooted resource use norms and social relations and redistribute resources e.g. outsiders (who might have historically used a certain reef) vs fishers in the “community”(Baker-Medard 2016). For example the skindivers felt that as professional octopus harvesters they were unfairly expected to forfeit access to products/grounds for wellbeing benefits to a wider group of people not as regularly engaged in or committed to octopus fishing. These perceptions fed into the conflicts around poaching and unfair distributions of benefits by skindivers that threatened the sustainability of the closure. This was also reflected in the dynamics with larger-scale octopus traders (specializing in octopus and linked to skindivers) who observed they took on levy costs plus sacrificed access to products. Thus establishment of CB MPAs is always an inherently political process which can maintain or disrupt existing unequal benefit distributions. For example planning could addresses different levels of specialization and/or types of engagement in the octopus fishery (c.f. Voyer et al. 2014) such as opening days with specific exclusion or entry rules such as women-first or women-and-children-only areas, diver-designated reefs, visitor-only areas or times. This however goes hand-in-hand with abilities to enforce/implement rules and regulations, one of the major issues for MPA implementation worldwide, for various reasons including lack of resources or social pressure not to report kin/neighbours.

Linking MPAs & Markets

Social inequity and material wellbeing losses in trading practices highlighted the importance of the octopus value chain for the experience of the closures and the importance of aligning periodic closure activities with trade and market dynamics. the poor market environment has been identified as a major factor hindering CB marine management more broadly in Tanzania (Riddel et al. 2020; Wosu et al. 2020). Similar issues were reported by our smaller-scale trading participants including unfair price setting, lack of proper storage facilities, absence of higher-value sales opportunities (to export, tourism), need for available cash on opening days, and difficulty in accessing enough products during closed time, but also at openings. All of which deepened differences and benefit capture between trader types. The implementing NGO was aware of such market constraints, addressing them through sustainable participatory market systems development, linked eco-credit solutions and enterprise incubation and development (Wild et al. 2021; Nicholas 2021; FFI 2022). Yet these approaches to finance and credit in incentivizing ecosystem management or restoration are not well explored (ibid). Integrating sustainable finance and value chain improvement solutions into relevant CB-MPA types (e.g. temporary closures or MPAs coupled to SSF systems) could help overcome some of the issues participants faced, particularly small-scale female traders, while at the same time help pay for monitoring and enforcement (which currently often falls into the “finance gap” of MPAs) (Meyers et al. 2020; Wild et al. 2021; FFI 2022). The co-development of community level credit and financing infrastructure in CB conservation can improve livelihood options and increase food security and assets, helping households deal with shocks or drops in production e.g. closed fishing grounds- all of which can contribute to climate change adaptation processes (Wild et al. 2021; FFI 2022). It is therefore important for MPA management strategies to follow conserved/protected area species downstream in the value chain, understanding the SSF as part of a complex trading system. By identifying market constraints that smaller-producers or traders face, including the lack of financing infrastructure, or engaging with value chain suppliers/ large trading agents (e.g. octopus exporters; there is substantial international export of octopus from Zanzibari closure systems (Bohlin 2020)) as sources of potential capital for community eco-funds, CB MPAs could become more effective enduring forms of collaborative NRM (Wild et al. 2021; FFI 2022). Noticeably this is a monetized approach to conservation practise that supports more westernized ethics in the marine management space. Such a market or finance focus brings expectations of money and economic incentivization, rather than necessarily an integration with moral, cultural or community ethics and values (see Infield et al. 2018)for importance of a values approach in CB conservation). This may or may not reflect the place of practice or indeed it might incite changes in human-nature relations. Ultimately, much of the octopus in our closure cases is absorbed into an internationalised western market system and ensuring more upstream rather than only downstream actors (i.e. exporters) benefit makes creating sustainable financial infrastructures a vital component of such CB conservation- and others like it.

Openings- a unique but mixed blessing

From a social wellbeing perspective periodic octopus closures, like rotational or other temporally varying closure systems are distinct from other types of MPAs like marine reserves because of the unique moment when the closure is opened for harvest. It was within this space that moment wellbeing impacts were most felt- from intense social conflict over broken rules to major boosts in catches, nutrition and deep celebratory happy interactions (where openings could be seen as creating relational goods (Uhlaner 1989). Openings were a strong source of social inequity, much more visible on these days and leaving lasting impressions with many participant-types as to whether the closure was worth it or not (e.g. women left behind due to fishing styles in the seascape). Opening events thoroughly impacted wellbeing across all dimensions and the majority of attributes, a lot of hopes, fears and expectations hung on how this event panned out for different groups. The ceremonial or celebratory aspects of this harvest event, not only the potential increased landings/sizes/quality of octopus (dependent on compliance), offers this type of MPA system a unique moment to create a considerably positive experience, thus positive closure perceptions, for many stakeholders (hundred attend such events) (c.f.Cinner et al. 2019). This also means a lot hangs in the balance at these events, if perceptions of inequity and the considerable illegalities that take place are not addressed then openings can have the opposite effect. Openings provide a double-edged sword- a bright spot for creating support but at the same time a critical moment for losing it.

Our study of octopus closures helps to fill a community based MPA research gap on socially-diverse impacts on multidimensional wellbeing as articulated by participants' themselves. Negative wellbeing impacts were largely about the social outcomes i.e. inequity, conflict, non-compliance, rather than impacts on catches and resources alone (similarly to Pita et al. 2020). We take into account not only different types of fishing styles associated with the octopus fishery but also trading actors and descriptions of collective benefits or costs. Such results highlighted the uniqueness of rotational or periodic closures compared to other MPA types due to the opening events, where many of the benefits, inequities and perceptions emerge. Social conflict and gender inequities were heightened through this event, emphasising the need for conflict resolution mechanisms, systematically mapping the clear pathways towards increased food security, planning for different levels of fishery specialization and better developing context-relevant financial infrastructures. Results reiterated social equity research on gender roles in SSF/CBNRM, but between different gendered livelihood groups rather than only men vs women, and the importance of tackling inadequate participation in conservation practice.

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare

Abunge C, Coulthard S, Daw TM. 2013. Connecting Marine Ecosystem Services to Human Well-being: Insights from Participatory Well-being Assessment in Kenya. Ambio. 42(8):1010–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0456-9
Acott TG, Johnson DS, Stacey N, Urquhart J. 2018. Reflections on Social Wellbeing and the Values of Small-Scale Fisheries: Implications for Research, Policy and Management. In: Johnson DS, Acott TG, Stacey N, Urquhart J, editors. Social Wellbeing and the Values of Small-scale Fisheries [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; [accessed 2021 Nov 23]; p. 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60750-4_14
Agarwal B. 2001. Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework. World Development. 29(10):1623–1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00066-3
Ajzen I, Fishbein M, Lohmann S, Albarracin D. 2018. The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. In: THE INFLUENCE OF ATTITUDES ON BEHAVIOR. University of Massachusetts.
Allison EH. 2011. Aquaculture, fisheries, poverty and food security. [Internet]. Penang, Malaysia: The WorldFish Center; [accessed 2023 Jan 18]. https://digitalarchive.worldfishcenter.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12348/1163/WF_2971.pdf?sequence1=
Baker-Medard M. 2016. Gendering Marine Conservation: The Politics of Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Access. Society & Natural Resources. 30:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1257078
Ban NC, Frid A. 2018. Indigenous peoples’ rights and marine protected areas. Marine Policy. 87:180–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.020
Ban NC, Gurney GG, Marshall NA, Whitney CK, Mills M, Gelcich S, Bennett NJ, Meehan MC, Butler C, Ban S, et al. 2019. Well-being outcomes of marine protected areas. Nat Sustain. 2(6):524–532. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0306-2
Barreto GC, Di Domenico M, Medeiros RP. 2020. Human dimensions of marine protected areas and small-scale fisheries management: A review of the interpretations. Marine Policy. 119:104040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104040
Benbow S, Humber F, Oliver T, Oleson K, Raberinary D, Nadon M, Ratsimbazafy H, Harris A. 2014. Lessons learnt from experimental temporary octopus fishing closures in south-west Madagascar: benefits of concurrent closures. African Journal of Marine Science. 36(1):31–37. https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2014.893256
Bennett NJ. 2016. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology. 30(3):582–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12681
Bennett NJ, Calò A, Di Franco A, Niccolini F, Marzo D, Domina I, Dimitriadis C, Sobrado F, Santoni M-C, Charbonnel E, et al. 2020. Social equity and marine protected areas: Perceptions of small-scale fishermen in the Mediterranean Sea. Biological Conservation. 244:108531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108531
Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan K, Christie P, Clark DA, Cullman G, Curran D, Durbin TJ, Epstein G, et al. 2017. Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation. 205:93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006
Berrío-Martínez J. 2022. Exploring complexities of fishery closures using octopus movements: an individual-based modelling approach [Internet]. Sweden: Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University; [accessed 2023 Jan 18]. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1677919/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Beyerl K, Putz O, Breckwoldt A. 2016. The Role of Perceptions for Community-Based Marine Resource Management. Frontiers in Marine Science [Internet]. [accessed 2022 Apr 13] 3. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2016.00238
Bhattacherjee A. 2012. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. Textbooks Collection [Internet]. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3
Bignante E. 2010. The use of photo-elicitation in field research. EchoGéo [Internet]. [accessed 2021 Nov 8] (11). https://doi.org/10.4000/echogeo.11622
BIOPAMA. 2018. Assessment tools and their application - BIOPAMA. BIOPAMA From Knowledge to Action for a Protected Planet [Internet]. [accessed 2022 Sep 22]. https://biopama.org/service/assessment-tools-and-their-application/
Bixler R, Shmelev S. 2015. The political ecology of participatory conservation: institutions and discourse. Journal of Political Ecology [Internet]. [accessed 2021 Jul 7] 22(1). https://doi.org/10.2458/v22i1.21083
Bohlin M. 2020. Tourism and marine resource conservation tentacle in tentacle? Zanzibari hotels as biosphere stewards in support of octopus closures [Internet]. [place unknown]; [accessed 2023 Jan 18]. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-183385
Breslow SJ, Sojka B, Barnea R, Basurto X, Carothers C, Charnley S, Coulthard S, Dolšak N, Donatuto J, García-Quijano C, et al. 2016. Conceptualizing and operationalizing human wellbeing for ecosystem assessment and management. Environmental Science & Policy. 66:250–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.023
Brueckner-Irwin I, Armitage D, Courtenay S. 2019. Applying a social-ecological well-being approach to enhance opportunities for marine protected area governance. Ecology and Society [Internet]. [accessed 2020 Oct 22] 24(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10995-240307
Cánovas-Molina A, García-Frapolli E. 2020. Untangling worldwide conflicts in marine protected areas: Five lessons from the five continents. Marine Policy. 121:104185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104185
Chaigneau T, Brown K. 2016. Challenging the win-win discourse on conservation and development: analyzing support for marine protected areas. Ecology and Society [Internet]. [accessed 2020 Nov 9] 21(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08204-210136
Chaigneau T, Coulthard S, Daw TM, Szaboova L, Camfield L, Chapin FS, Gasper D, Gurney GG, Hicks CC, Ibrahim M, et al. 2022. Reconciling well-being and resilience for sustainable development. Nat Sustain. 5(4):287–293. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00790-8
Charles A, Wilson L. 2009. Human dimensions of Marine Protected Areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 66(1):6–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsn182
Cinner JE, Lau JD, Bauman AG, Feary DA, Januchowski-Hartley FA, Rojas CA, Barnes ML, Bergseth BJ, Shum E, Lahari R, et al. 2019. Sixteen years of social and ecological dynamics reveal challenges and opportunities for adaptive management in sustaining the commons. PNAS. 116(52):26474–26483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914812116
Coulthard S, McGregor JA. 2015. Exploring wellbeing in fishing communities: Methods handbook. Output from the ESRC WellFish project (Ref no: ES.I009604.2) [Internet]. [accessed 2022 Jun 8]. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1269.5761
Crosman KM, Allison EH, Ota Y, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Singh GG, Swartz W, Bailey M, Barclay KM, Blume G, Colléter M, et al. 2022. Social equity is key to sustainable ocean governance. npj Ocean Sustain. 1(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-022-00001-7
Darling ES. 2014. Assessing the Effect of Marine Reserves on Household Food Security in Kenyan Coral Reef Fishing Communities. PLOS ONE. 9(11):e113614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113614
Dawson N, Martin A, Danielsen F. 2018. Assessing Equity in Protected Area Governance: Approaches to Promote Just and Effective Conservation. Conservation Letters. 11(2):e12388. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12388
Denzin N, Lincoln Y. 2005. Introduction The Discipline and practise of qualitive research. In: The SAGE handbook of qualitative research [Internet]. 3rd ed. California: SAGE Publications Ltd; [accessed 2022 Oct 11]. https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/17670_Chapter1.pdf
Di Chiro G. 2008. Living environmentalisms: coalition politics, social reproduction, and environmental justice. Environmental Politics. 17(2):276–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010801936230
Drury O’Neill E, Daw T, Lindkvist E, MWAMBAO, Mwaipopo RN. IN REVIEW. Compliance, Complexity and Cephalopods-Disaggregated Responses to Participatory Marine Conservation & Management. People and Nature.
Everett R, Mwangamilo J, Shalli M. 2014. FIRST SOUTH WEST INDIAN OCEAN FISHERIES GOVERNANCE AND SHARED GROWTH PROJECT – SWIOFish ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT (ESA) and ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (ESMF) [Internet]. Tanzania: Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development United Republic of Tanzania; [accessed 2022 Dec 7]. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ar/921011468003576936/pdf/E46250V30P132100Box385306B00PUBLIC0.pdf
Fabinyi M, Evans L, Foale SJ. 2014. Social-ecological systems, social diversity, and power: insights from anthropology and political ecology. Ecology and Society [Internet]. [accessed 2021 Jun 17] 19(4). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269693
FAO. 2017. Marine protected areas: Interactions with fishery livelihoods and food security [Internet]. Rome, Italy: FAO Food and Agriculture Organization; [accessed 2022 Nov 24]. https://www.fao.org/3/i6742e/i6742e.pdf
FFI. 2022. Increasing socio-ecological resilience through community-led management of key coastal ecosystems in Pemba Channel, Tanzania Preliminary Process Framework [Internet]. United Kingdom: Fauna & Flora International; [accessed 2022 Nov 30]. https://www.blueactionfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/FFI_TZ_Process-Framework.pdf
Fox H, Mascia M, Basurto X, Costa A, Glew L, Heinemann D, Karrer L, Lester S, Lombana A, Pomeroy R, et al. 2011. Reexamining the science of marine protected areas: Linking knowledge to action. Conservation Letters. 5:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00207.x
Franks P, Small R. 2018. Social Assessment for Protected and Conserved Areas (SAPA) Methodology manual for SAPA facilitators [Internet]. London: IIED; [accessed 2022 Sep 22]. https://pubs.iied.org/14659iied
Gill DA, Cheng SH, Glew L, Aigner E, Bennett NJ, Mascia MB. 2019. Social synergies, tradeoffs, and equity in marine conservation impacts. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 44:347–372.
Gough I, McGregor JA, editors. 2007. Wellbeing in developing countries: from theory to research. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Guard M. 2009. Biology and fisheries status of octopus in the Western Indian Ocean and the Suitability for marine stewardship council certification. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and The Institute for Security Studies (ISS).:1–21.
Guard M, Mgaya YD. 2002. The artisanal fishery for Octopus cyanea Gray in Tanzania. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. 31(7):528–536.
Gurney GG, Cinner J, Ban NC, Pressey RL, Pollnac R, Campbell SJ, Tasidjawa S, Setiawan F. 2014. Poverty and protected areas: An evaluation of a marine integrated conservation and development project in Indonesia. Global Environmental Change. 26:98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.003
Hamann M, Berry K, Chaigneau T, Curry T, Heilmayr R, Henriksson PJG, Hentati-Sundberg J, Jina A, Lindkvist E, Lopez-Maldonado Y, et al. 2018. Inequality and the Biosphere. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 43(1):61–83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025949
Hebert LE, Bansal S, Lee SY, Yan S, Akinola M, Rhyne M, Menendez A, Gilliam M. 2020. Understanding young women’s experiences of gender inequality in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh through story circles. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth. 25(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1568888
Hirsch PD, Adams WM, Brosius JP, Zia A, Bariola N, Dammert JL. 2010. Acknowledging Conservation Trade-Offs and Embracing Complexity: Conservation Trade-Offs and Complexity. Conservation Biology.:no-no. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01608.x
Humber F, Harris A, Raberinary D, Nadon M. 2006. Seasonal Closures of No-Take Zones to promote A Sustainable Fishery for Octopus Cyanea (Gray) in South West Madagascar. [place unknown]: Blue Ventures.
Infield M, Entwistle A, Anthem H, Mugisha A, Phillips K. 2018. Reflections on cultural values approaches to conservation: lessons from 20 years of implementation. Oryx. 52(2):220–230. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317000928
IUCN. 2020. Worldwide catalogue of case studies on Aquaculture and Marine Conservation, N°1: Zanzibar [Internet]. Gland, Switzerland: NTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE IUCN; [accessed 2023 Jan 18]. https://www.iucn.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/zanzibar_case_study_2020.pdf
Jack-Kadioglu T. 2017. Mtende and Kiwengwa Community Facilitated Historical Reef Closures. Zanzibar: MWAMBAO Coastal Community Network.
Jacquemont J, Blasiak R, Le Cam C, Le Gouellec M, Claudet J. 2022. Ocean conservation boosts climate change mitigation and adaptation. One Earth. 5(10):1126–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.09.002
Jiddawi NS, H. Vuai Sihaba, Suleiman IA. 2009. Status of Fisheries Reosurces and Seaweed Farming. Unguja, Zanzibar: Zanzibar Revolutionary Government.
Johnson DS, Acott TG, Stacey N, Urquhart J. 2018. Social Wellbeing and the Values of Small-scale Fisheries. [place unknown]: Springer.
Kawarazuka N, Béné C. 2010. Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to household nutritional security: An overview. Food Security. 2:343–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-010-0079-y
Keller C, Bostrom A, Kuttschreuter M, Savadori L, Spence A, White M. 2012. Bringing appraisal theory to environmental risk perception: a review of conceptual approaches of the past 40 years and suggestions for future research. Journal of Risk Research. 15(3):237–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2011.634523
Khatib H, Jiddawi N. 2010. Zanzibar Fisheries Frame Survey Report. Zanzibar: Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources,.
Kleiber D, Harris L, Vincent ACJ. 2018. Gender and marine protected areas: a case study of Danajon Bank, Philippines. Maritime Studies. 17(2):163–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0107-7
Kockel A, Ban NC, Costa M, Dearden P. 2020. Evaluating approaches for scaling-up community-based marine-protected areas into socially equitable and ecologically representative networks. Conservation Biology. 34(1):137–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13368
Law EA, Bennett NJ, Ives CD, Friedman R, Davis KJ, Archibald C, Wilson KA. 2018. Equity trade-offs in conservation decision making. Conservation Biology. 32(2):294–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13008
Levers M-JD. 2013. Philosophical Paradigms, Grounded Theory, and Perspectives on Emergence. SAGE Open. 3(4):2158244013517243. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013517243
Mahajan SL, Daw T. 2016. Perceptions of ecosystem services and benefits to human well-being from community-based marine protected areas in Kenya. Marine Policy. 74:108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.005
Mascia MB, Claus CA, Naidoo R. 2010. Impacts of Marine Protected Areas on Fishing Communities. Conservation Biology. 24(5):1424–1429.
Mascia MB, Fox HE, Glew L, Ahmadia GN, Agrawal A, Barnes M, Basurto X, Craigie I, Darling E, Geldmann J. 2017. A novel framework for analyzing conservation impacts: evaluation, theory, and marine protected areas. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1399:93–115.
McKinnon MC, Cheng SH, Dupre S, Edmond J, Garside R, Glew L, Holland MB, Levine E, Masuda YJ, Miller DC, et al. 2016. What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environmental Evidence. 5(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0058-7
Meyers D, Alliance CF, Bohorquez J, Cumming B, Emerton L, Riva M, Fund U, Victurine R. 2020. Conservation finance: a framework. Conservation Finance Alliance.:1–45.
Mizrahi M, Diedrich A, Weeks R, Pressey RL. 2019. A Systematic Review of the Socioeconomic Factors that Influence How Marine Protected Areas Impact on Ecosystems and Livelihoods. Society & Natural Resources. 32(1):4–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1489568
NDF. 2014. Coastal Profile for Zanzibar 2014 Portfolio of Actions. Finland: Nordic Development Fund.
Nicholas T. 2021. Community Eco-Credit pilot - incentive for local marine management and opportunity for livelihoods improvement. Panorama solutions for a healthy planet [Internet]. [accessed 2022 Nov 30]. https://panorama.solutions/en/solution/community-eco-credit-pilot-incentive-local-marine-management-and-opportunity-livelihoods
O’Brien KL, Leichenko RM. 2000. Double exposure: assessing the impacts of climate change within the context of economic globalization. Global environmental change. 10(3):221–232.
Oliver TA, Oleson KLL, Ratsimbazafy H, Raberinary D, Benbow S, Harris A. 2015. Positive Catch & Economic Benefits of Periodic Octopus Fishery Closures: Do Effective, Narrowly Targeted Actions ‘Catalyze’ Broader Management? PLOS ONE. 10(6):e0129075. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129075
Pita C, Horta e Costa B, Franco G, Coelho R, Sousa I, Gonçalves EJ, Gonçalves JMS, Erzini K. 2020. Fisher’s perceptions about a marine protected area over time. Aquaculture and Fisheries. 5(5):273–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2020.01.005
Porter M, Mwaipopo R, Faustine R, Mzuma M. 2008. Globalization and Women in Coastal Communities in Tanzania. Development. 51(2):193–198. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2008.4
Rasheed AR. 2020. Marine protected areas and human well-being – A systematic review and recommendations. Ecosystem Services. 41:101048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101048
Riddel M, Esmail, Samoilys M, Musembi P, Kawaka J, Ojwang L, Momanyi J. 2020. Review of sustainable financing for community based marine management [Internet]. Kenya: CORDIO East Africa; [accessed 2023 Jan 18]. https://cordioea.net/management-action/leap/sustainable_financing/
Rocliffe S, Harris A. 2015. Scaling success in octopus fisheries management in the Western Indian Ocean [Internet]. Zanzibar: Blue Ventures; [accessed 2016 Apr 19]. https://blueventures.org/publication/scaling-success-in-octopus-fisheries-management-in-the-western-indian-ocean/
Rohe J, Schlüter A, Ferse SCA. 2018. A gender lens on women’s harvesting activities and interactions with local marine governance in a South Pacific fishing community. Maritime Studies. 17(2):155–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0106-8
Sauer WHH, Gleadall IG, Downey-Breedt N, Doubleday Z, Gillespie G, Haimovici M, Ibáñez CM, Katugin ON, Leporati S, Lipinski MR, et al. 2021. World Octopus Fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture. 29(3):279–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2019.1680603
Silas MO, Kishe MA, Mgeleka SS, Kuboja BN, Ngatunga BP, Matiku P. 2022. The octopus fishing closures positively impact human wellbeing and management success; case of Tanzania. Ocean & Coastal Management. 217:106022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.106022
Slade L, Breuil C, Greboval D. 2019. Working Paper on Scoping for Octopus management in Zanzibar. :19.
Uhlaner CJ. 1989. “Relational goods” and participation: Incorporating sociability into a theory of rational action. Public Choice. 62(3):253–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02337745
VERBI software. 2019. MAXQDA 2020.
Voyer M, Gladstone W, Goodall H. 2014. Understanding marine park opposition: the relationship between social impacts, environmental knowledge and motivation to fish. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 24(4):441–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2363
Weeratunge N, Béné C, Siriwardane R, Charles A, Johnson D, Allison EH, Nayak PK, Badjeck M-C. 2014. Small-scale fisheries through the wellbeing lens. Fish Fish. 15(2):255–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12016
Westerman K, Benbow S. 2013. The role of women in community-based small-scale fisheries management: the case of the southern Madagascar octopus fishery. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science. 12(2):119–132.
White S. 2008. But What is Wellbeing? A Framework for Analysis in Social and Development Policy and Practice.
White SC. 2015. Relational wellbeing: A theoretical and operational approach. [place unknown]: Bath Papers in International Development and Wellbeing.
Wild R, Egaru M, Ellis-Jones M, Bugembe BN, Mohamed A, Ngigi O, Ogwok G, Roberts J, Kutegeka S. 2021. Using Inclusive Finance to Significantly Scale Climate Change Adaptation. In: Oguge N, Ayal D, Adeleke L, da Silva I, editors. African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; [accessed 2022 Nov 30]; p. 2565–2590. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_127
Wosu A. 2017. The social-ecological dynamics of fisherwomen’s behaviour in northern Mozambique. [PhD] [Internet]. Scotland: University of Edinburgh. https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/31249
Wosu A, Katikiro R, Mahatante Tsimanaoraty P, Mahajan SL, Ahmadia G, Chale T, Dresy L, Kamugisha G, Modesta M, Jumane Ralison M, et al. 2020. A review of community-based management in coastal ecosystems in Madagascar and Tanzania [Internet]. [place unknown]: World Wildlife Fund WWF; [accessed 2021 Oct 18].

Appendix1DatacollectionInstruments.pdf

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Multidimensional human wellbeing in periodic octopus closures

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Methodology & Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1